2018 Supreme(SC) 269

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Adarsh Kumar Goel, Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.
Krishnakant Tamrakar - Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 470 of 2018 (Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9393 of 2017)
Decided On : 28-03-2018

IMPORTANT POINT
Directions given for speedy justice delivery including appointment of judges including Chief Justice of High Courts, better case management, accountability of judges’ performance, creation of alternate fora, prohibiting strikes by lawyers etc.

Headnote:(a) Constitutional law – Separation of powers – Restructuring of courts and administration of justice – Matter of policy – Responsibility of Executive and Legislature – But affecting fundamental right of speedy justice under Articles 14 and 21, Constitution of India – Court cannot refuse to look into it – Although mandatory time limit for speedy justice is nit favoured, non binding guidelines could be adopted – Directions for review of cadre strength for subordinate judiciary and infrastructure for the district judiciary. (Para 15, 19)

       (2016) 8 SCC 509; (2012) 2 SCC 688; (2002) 4 SCC 578; (2017) 3 SCC 658 – Relied upon

       (b) Administration if justice – Pendency of cases for more than 5 years in High Courts – Difficulty in identifying adequate number of suitable persons for Constitutional Courts – Judicial reforms – Courts of Appeals – Alternative fora – Constitutional remedy and statutory appeal – Distinction – Direct appeal to Supreme Court. (Para 21, 23, 26, 29)

       (2001) 4 SCC 355; (1997) 3 SCC 261; (2015) 5 SCC 423; (1979)2 SCC 656; (2016)9 SCC 103 – Relied upon

       (c) Administration if justice – Fair system of administration of justice – One trial and one appeal – Must be within reasonable time not exceeding one to two years – Multiple layers of remedies – Need to be eliminated – Article 227 – Steps taken by government set off by increased volume of work or otherwise – Union of India ought to consider viability of having criminal appeals and other matters before the High Courts decided within reasonable time as per existing system – Alternatively, possibility of providing any other suitable forum for such appeals to ensure enforcement of fundamental right of speedy justice should be considered – Non-viability of providing routine statutory appeals to Constitutional Courts may also need to be considered. (Para 31, 32, 33)

       (2000) 8 SCC 437; (2016)9 SCC 103 – Relied upon

       (d) Administration of justice – Pendency of cases – Filling up of vacancies (of judges) at all levels with the best available talent – In time bound manner – All India Judicial Service – uniformity in recruitment – Central selection mechanism – Urgent steps needed. (Para 34, 35)

       (1992) 1 SCC 119; (2008) 17 SCC 703; (2002) 4 SCC 247; Suo Motu Writ (Civil)No. 1 of 2017 – Relied upon

       (1977) 4 SCC 291; (1996) 2 SCC 199; (2006) 8 SCC 1; (2016) 6 SCC 1 – Referred

       (e) Administration of justice – Pendency of cases – Appointment of Judges – Collegium system – need for improvement – Memorandum of Procedure – Suggested improvements not carried out. (Para 36, 38, 39)

       (1993) 4 SCC 441; (1998) 7 SCC 739; (2016) 5 SCC 1; (2016) 5 SCC 1; (2017) 7 SCC 1 – Relied upon

       (f) Administration of justice – Speedy justice – Timely appointment of chief justice of a High court – Supreme Court directing that there shall be no Acting Chief justice more than one month – Even then timely appointments of Chief Justices not taking place – Need of urgent action emphasised. (Para 40)

       (1993)4 SCC 441 – Relied upon

       (g) Administration of justice – Accountability of judges in terms of Performance Measurement and Righteousness of Conduct – Need for mechanism of evaluation – Non mandatory timeline for decision of cases – Measures against erring judges. (Para 41)

       (2017) 7 SCC 1 – Relied upon

       (h) Administration of justice – Judicial reforms – Uncalled for strikes – Need to remedy – Competent authorities may take a final call – Every resolution to go on strike and abstain from work is per se contempt – Ministry of Law and Justice directed to present at least a quarterly report on strikes/abstaining from work, loss caused and action proposed – Court can thereafter consider the matter in its contempt or inherent jurisdiction. (Para 44, 50, 51)

       (2003) 2 SCC 45; (2016)8 SCC 335 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant was convicted under Sections 148, 302/149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, apart from other sentences. According to the prosecution the appellant along with the co-accused caused the murder of one Shahid. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant. The appellant applied for bail pending consideration of appeal before the High Court. After the said prayer was rejected, another application was filed. The High Court rejected the second bail application with the observation that the evidence on record did not warrant grant of bail.

       Finding of the Court:

       Judicial reforms are urgently required.

       Result: Appeal disposed of.