There has to be clarity among the executive, legislative and judicial branches on how the Constitution empowers and protects the people. In their own ways, they must enforce the rule of law. Of late, questions have been raised by a constitutional authority like Vice President Jagdeep Dhankar and controversial MP Nishikant Dubey of the BJP on how the Supreme Court is exercising its powers.
There is no doubt that the Indian Judiciary is one of the most poorly performing institutions. Almost every day there are reports on how verdicts are delivered even in the most mundane of cases after decades of hearings. ‘Justice delayed is justice denied’ is sadly not a cliché in India, it is a lived reality. What are the reasons for this? Not enough judges is one. Why can’t this be addressed with the required urgency? Is there a shortage of lawyers capable of passing the required tests? Or, is there a vested interest in keeping the situation as it is so that criminals of all kinds can stay out of jail almost for a lifetime once bail has been granted?
Another obvious reason is that the prosecutors are incapable of presenting arguments and evidence with the clarity required to convince the courts. Technical shortcomings give defence lawyers the opportunity to have their clients acquitted even in many open and shut matters, forcing the government to appeal in higher courts. The most ridiculous matters make it even to the Supreme Court following many years of trial. It is important, therefore, that prosecutors should be well-trained, be up to date on all scientific, technical and legal matters, and have the powers to exercise their judgement on plea bargains so the fewer matters go to court. There is also, of course, the obvious cancer of corruption that eats up the system from inside.
With all this pending work, matters are made worse by the increasingly ‘supervisory’ role taken up by the higher judiciary to not just interpret the law, but to tell others how to do their job. There are inquiries, committees and other interventions ordered where technically these are the responsibility of others. It is for governments to decide if work is not being done properly, and the voters to decide if the government needs to stay or go.
The problem is that the judicial system in the country has been inherited from the British, so the founding principles have not evolved here. (What’s with all the Latin words?) Without these being inherent in judicial functioning, it will take a lot of hits and misses before the courts function as efficiently as they should. In the meanwhile, however, the other institutions will continue to be adversely impacted, and the complaints will only become louder. Invoking ‘ius judicandi’ does not provide an alibi.
