|
De Haar 173 2261 ZB Leidschendam The Netherlands Phone: 070 ‑ 32 76 004 E-mail: President@ fcci.nl Website: www.fcci.nl
August 20, 2010
Delivering Faster Justice in India: Relevance of European Judicial Models
In this era of globalization, it has become easier for individuals as well the nations to know more about each other and to learn from each other. As India is leading the world in information technology and spirituality, there are areas in which India can also benefit from the successful experiences of the western world. The effectiveness and efficiency in the judicial system is one of those fields. As the Netherlands has become the global center of legal expertise and international legal institutions such as the International Court of Justice, International Criminal Court and various international tribunals, some models applied in this county in law and justice area could be applicable in India.
Keeping in mind the above, a seminar on the theme Delivering Faster Justice in India: Relevance of European Judicial Models was organized on the 4th July 2010 at Schiphol, Amsterdam, by the think tank, The Foundation for Critical Choices for India. The seminar was attended by about 70 participants, including lawyers, scholars, students of law and others interested in this field. The speakers were the experts in the legal field from India as well the Netherlands.
Some of the ideas brought forward in the Seminar were: · The creation of a commission like the ‘ European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice’, with the aim to monitor, compare and evaluate the functioning of the judicial system in different parts of India. · Giving the management tasks in the courts to non-judicial experts (MBAs), so that the judges can concentrate on their legal work. In the Netherlands, through application of management approaches most of the procedures and processes have been simplified and disposal time reduced considerably. · Raising the strength of judiciary by tenfold in ten years. Europe has about twenty times more judges than India in relation to the number of inhabitants. A thorough investigation is needed to look into the reasons, why it is not possible to recruit more judges. It is surprising that even filling around three thousand vacancies seems to be a problem despite the fact that India has more than one million lawyers. Certainly there is some mismatch between the demand and supply in this field. The legal education needs to be made more practice oriented. As is the case in the Netherlands, there should be separate courses, after the post graduation in law, which can lead to the post of a judge. Active steps should be taken to encourage the female representation in the judiciary. For example, the majority of judges in the Netherlands are women, while their number in India is negligible. Top lawyers and retired judges could work as part-time judges. The working conditions for the judiciary, including the salary, particularly at the district level could be made more attractive. A good functioning judiciary earns its cost back richly by increasing citizen satisfaction and a better image of governance. The problem in India lies primarily at the district level. In the Netherlands there is a very small gap between the salaries of the judges in the district courts and those in the Supreme Court. · The infrastructure for the judiciary has not kept pace with the growth in population and the litigation explosion. As long as India does not have enough means to build new court complexes, the existing structure can be utilized more intensively by having evening courts, weekend courts and bringing more discipline in the working hours of the judiciary. · Abolishing the culture of adjournments. In the Netherlands getting an adjournment is an exception to the rule only, while in India it is exactly the other way around. The unnecessary and unlimited adjournments lead not only to delays in the delivery of justice but also to the exploitation of often poor and illiterate litigants. · Creation of specialized courts to enhance the efficiency of judiciary. For example the cases related to the issues of overseas Indians or other foreign investors could be referred to NRI-courts. There could be separate courts to address family matters, tenancy or labour disputes. · Compensating the victims of delay. As is the case in the Netherlands and many other European countries, the victims of delay in justice are being compensated. In criminal cases the prosecution becomes non-admissible or the punishment is reduced considerably if the defendant has to wait too long for the (final) verdict. In administrative cases the government has to pay financial compensation to the litigants for the material and immaterial suffering of the litigant as a result of delay in the delivery of justice. · Limiting the number of appeals (by the government). The workload of the judiciary is increased very often by unwarranted appeals by the government agencies. These appeals can be reduced considerably, after weighing the pros and cons of many appeals. · The introduction of summary trials. A very efficient instrument for speedy justice being applied in the Netherlands is the system of summary trials, in which the litigants can get a verdict in simple cases in a very short period. · Full use of the ‘Alternative Dispute Resolution’ instruments & methods like mediation, arbitration, counseling etc. In some cases the writ should be admissible in the court only after all ADR means are exhausted. · Encouragement of the compromises and mutual settlements by the courts. In the Netherlands the civil courts play a very active part in persuading the litigants to reach a mutual settlement instead the court verdict. · Immediate implementation of court verdicts. In the Netherlands the most verdicts (in civil cases) can be executed immediately. The party that knows that it will lose the appeal but still opts for that with the only motive to delay the execution, is then discouraged to lodge an appeal, saving a lot of extra workload for the judiciary, while in India very often the litigant has to start a new procedure to implement the court verdict after winning a lengthy legal battle. · To save time and make the procedure more efficient, the evidence, not linked to the guilt of the accused, could be introduced in a written statement, only subject to cross examination, as is done by International Tribunals in the Hague.
|
