The judiciary plays a pivotal role in upholding the rule of law and ensuring justice. However, one of the most pressing challenges that our legal system faces today is the staggering pendency of cases. The situation is particularly concerning in the UTs of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, where the pendency of cases, especially those five years or older, has been a growing concern for years. The recent initiative taken by the Acting Chief Justice of the J&K and Ladakh High Court, Justice Tashi Rabstan, to address this issue is a much-needed and commendable step. His issuance of additional guidelines aimed at decreasing the pendency of five-year-plus-old cases provides a framework for a more streamlined and equitable judicial process.
Justice delayed is justice denied. This age-old maxim underscores the importance of timely legal proceedings. The excessive delay in resolving cases not only affects the lives of litigants but also undermines the credibility of the judiciary. In many instances, individuals involved in legal battles have to wait for years, sometimes decades, before a verdict is delivered. This erodes public faith in the judicial system, as justice loses its value when it is not timely delivered. The pendency of cases, particularly older ones, is often attributed to a combination of factors, including inadequate judicial resources, procedural delays, frequent adjournments, and the non-availability of key witnesses or accused. The situation becomes even more complicated in regions like Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, where geographical and political complexities add layers of difficulty to the smooth functioning of the judiciary.
The recent circular introduces comprehensive guidelines aimed at addressing the issue of case pendency. The central element of this initiative is the formation of a ‘District Case Management Committee’ in each district. The committee, led by the Principal District Judge and comprising senior judicial officers, is tasked with supervising and implementing case management strategies to ensure the swift and efficient disposal of old cases. This creates a dedicated mechanism at the district level to monitor the progress of pending cases, particularly those that are more than five years old. The directive to hold regular meetings will help identify bottlenecks and come up with localised solutions that are pragmatic and suited to the specific needs of each district.
One of the most significant aspects of the new guidelines is the emphasis on equitable and rationalised distribution of old cases among judicial officers. Often, some courts are burdened with an overwhelming number of cases, while others have a relatively lighter caseload. This imbalance leads to inefficiency and slows down the overall judicial process. By identifying target cases and ensuring their equitable distribution based on the nature of the case and the experience of the judicial officer, the guidelines ensure a more balanced approach. This allocation method will likely expedite the resolution of long-pending cases.
One of the major hurdles in the speedy disposal of criminal cases is the non-appearance of accused persons or witnesses. District Case Management Committees are empowered to devise a mechanism that ensures the regular appearance of accused individuals and witnesses. Additionally, the suggestion to appoint senior police officers as nodal officers for supervising the service of summons is an innovative approach.
While the guidelines emphasise the need for the quick disposal of old cases, they also caution against compromising the quality of justice. The circular explicitly states that easy recourse to dismissing cases for non-prosecution or deciding matters ex parte should be avoided unless necessary. This is to safeguard the fundamental principles of justice. The Chief Justice’s commitment to monitoring is a top-down approach. By creating a structured, accountable, and collaborative framework, these guidelines aim to tackle the problem at its root. If implemented effectively, this initiative has the potential to restore the faith of the public in the judicial system. Justice, after all, is only meaningful when it is timely and fair.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
