Nari Adalat ( Guj – for women, of women), Lok Adalat, Gram Nyayalaya
Fast track courts, Commercial division , Arbitration and councillation , Tribunals, Quasi Judicial , Arbitration – GIFT City
National Mission for Judicial Reforms
Problem
Delays in courts
Over 3 crore cases pending in total
According to an estimate, pending cases will require 10 years to solve
In some courts ( Patna) average time per case in as low as 2 min
Why ?
Shortage – 40% of judges in HC, Management system, Tech, 3F, NJAC clarity , Investigation shoddy, PIL, Role of NGOs
SC said, Fair and Speedy Trial is a part of Article 21 – Right to Life and Liberty
Understaffed
400 vacancies in HC out of sanctioned strenth of 1200 judges
Aggrevation more after judiciary-executive clash
Suggestion for SEC
Search Cum Evaluation Committee – Suggest in NJAC issue
Dedicated member of experts
Who would take over the logistical aspects – management – of searching the prospective judges, doing their background check and then bring the name to the collegium
Will work in cooperation with the collegium
Makes the selection process transparent, faster and objective
Conviction rates of crimes is one of the lowest in the world – Home minister
Expensive
Access to justice survey found out that legal system is too expensive for most
Only 3 % people made use of free legal aid service
Pro Bono Legal Service
Voluntary legal aid by Lawyers
Promotes institute like Khap Panchayat and Crime Reporting low
Judicial Over activism / Overreach
Tools –
142, 136, 129 , Writs, PILs
When the judiciary steps into the shoes of legislature, generally with a view to enable justice to be actually implemented
Judicial overereach is an extreme case of activism, when not only judiciary oversteps its original mandate but also takes a decision which can be termed as Arbitary
Judicial Overreach Example –
Punjab HC designating that the post of Chairman of Protection of Child Rights be reserved for a HC Judge in contravention of the original provisions
SC later termed it as abuse of power and Judicial Overreach
Appointing the Lokayukta in UP
Judicial Activism Example
Vishakha
MDM
Vineet Narayan case
Hussaina Khatoon case
Pro / Con
Same as PIL
Here focus more on Checks and Balances and Separation of Power though
Way Out
142 be used only by a bech of more than 5 judges to reduce Discretion
White paper to study the impact
Restraint
Conclusion
SC observation
Judges should order in consonance of law
Should not peddle individual notions of justice
Acting even as “candle of hope” might do more harm than good
PIL
no locus standi – Justice Bhagwati
Benefit
Aimed to provide benefits to those who can’t normally access justice
Hussaina Khatoon Case – Release of 40k prisoners in Bihar who had served theor sentence ,
Social, Political, Legal changes
Vishakha Guidelines Environment protection
CBI enquiry against officials in Vineet Narain case – independence of CBI and according of statutory status to the CVC
Increases public confidence in judiciary
Promotes rule of law, transparency, excecutive accountabolity , social development , Public Participation
Con
Diversion – 3 crore cases pending. 70 cases per judge per day
Judicial over activism – SC noted judges should not pass their own wisdom – but focus o law – Separation of Power
SC observed- NGOs – proxy litigants to settle corporate cases
Proxy Interest Litigations
Harass public officials
Genuine PILs miss out
PIL to callback Indian cricket team
Lawyers use for self gratification
SC guidelines to prevent misuse
Bona fide need
Can’t be used against individual
Only 5 matters where PIL can be filed
Way out
Code for compulsory cost
Screening mechanism
Expansion of right to life
Substantive Due process vs Procedural due process
In US, substantive due process- That is judiciary checks the arbitariness of law
Britain – no check on Paliament
In India
Intended to be procedural- That is a law can be struck not because of its arbitariness but because it violates certain section of the constitution
Since Maneka Gandhi case, SC interpretation – due process
Although, in Rajbala case, the SC refused to upturn the Haryana’s law for minimum qualification for panchayat election – can’t question the arbitariness of the law
Recently – Against Markandey Katju – a Former Judge
Act
Contempt of Court Act , 1971
Article 129
Article 19(2)
Issues
Freedom – 19(1) (a)
Overuse, Abuse, Discretion, stiffling media, may be used against other judges ( Katju )
Way Out
Amenments in Contempt of Court Act, 1971 to objectify the various conditions
Minimise use as in UK
Contempt of Court proceedings be judged by a Bench of at least 5 judges to reduce discretion
Similarly , Larger Benches can be a solution against Judicial Overreach
Expands PoV, checks against misuse of power, leads to more stability in judgement as they are difficult to overturn
In significant cases like Naz foundation case – 2 judge bench decided
Relavant law – Article 145 (3) – minimum 5 judges bech for a constitutional case
Conclusion
IN the Hindustan Times case, the judiciary itself has called for restraint in its use and must be duly followed
AT same time Inquisitorial Judicial System needed in some instances
Where Judge plays an enquiring / examining role taking a Pro Active Approach
In countries like Scotland, Japan
Particularly where victims are traumatised – eg Rape cases, POCSO cases
Technology starved
Only 4 courts in India support e- case filling function
Shows limited success of 1500 crore e-court project
Role of Tech – When computers introduced, subastantially reduced the pendancy of no of cases
Transparency
NJAC annulled
CJI under corruption charges
RTI – Judiciary limited out in spite of decision by CIC
Lack of Synergy between Judges
CJI
Master of Role issue
Justice Chelameshwar dissent on NJAC
Justice Karnan case
Good line
We have moved from Rule of Law to Rule of Judiciary to rule of Individual Judges over the years
Neglects the role of victim
Economic costs of petitions
Ease of Enforcing Contracts
India ranks in 180s
Access to Justice Survey report by NGO Daksh
Loss at 0.5% of GDP due to delays and costs to go to Judiciary again and again
Solution
Accountability
NITI – Judicial Performance Index
Would raise accountability
And iduce benefits out of Competition
RTI
Lokpal
Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2012
Ethics Commissioner – As in Austrailia
National Judicial Oversights committee
Currently – NO JUDGE has been ever impeached under ARTICLE 124(4) of the constitiution and issues like Justice KARNAN’s case are rising – Points the need for greater recourse to Article 124(4)
More judges appointment
35% vacancy in all HCs . 400/ 1200
India has 12 judges per million; US has 50
Problem not merely of govt vs judiciary
Even in Trial courts 25% vacancy of judges
This is completely managed by Judiciary right from taking the exam
Points to intrinsic structural problem
Fast Trak Courts
Their fundings have been reduced by the central govt – States do it now
60% of them have been closed
Strong need
AIS on the lines of Civil Services
Appoint Retired Judges as Ad- Hoc Judges
Minimum tenure of CJI
Management
Of 3 crore pendency, many cases are actually closed with litigants dead or not interested
Management requirement to settle these
Similarly, management via Judicial Administrators would manage the logistics properly and remove the pressure on judges
Standardisation across courts
Like same Abbreviations
National Mission for Justice Delivery and judicial reforms recommendations be swifty incorporated
Looking at Business process Re-engineering, capacity development
Technology
Digital records – MIS
Video conferencing to investigate & question witness
Technological Improvements required in Criminal Investigation like Polygraph
Artificial Intelligence in Crime solving
Willpower– In 1990s efforts by former CJI MN Venkatchaliah resulted in reduction of pending cases from 5 lakhs to 16k cases – aided by tech
Right ow e-courts projects lagging behind arguably due to vested interests
Leave
As in the case of Commercial Courts or NGT
As a former CJI proposed, leaves on Saturday, Sunday should be removed. Instead, it could be used after the completion of a chunk of cases
50 days summer vaccation should be shortened
SC has created history this year – 3 benches will be continuously sitting during the summer vacation
Counter – Judges hearing 70 cases a day, need for refreshing
Reduction in Govt litigations
Currently about 50%
Steps Taken
LIMBS
National Litigation Policy, 2010
Need for more Tech like Data Analytics, Management system
Inter department clashes should be sorted out at govt level
Previously National Litigation Policy in 2010, but did not succeed because about ambiguity regarding petitions itslelf and empowered committees role
NGOs
Code for Compulsory Costs
Screening mechanisms to filter out Spurious cases
Alternative Judical Institutions
Pro Bono Legal Service
Voluntary legal aid by Lawyers
PLEA BARGAINING
Takes out cases punishable upto 7 years for negotiated settlement without trial
Adopted in 2003 under the CrPC
However, resistance from Bar and Bench meant that it remains a dead letter
More lok adalat, Nari Adalat,
Tribunals –
because they are more specialized
and time limit can be imposed on them
Involve the Victim more
Committee on reforms for Criminal Justice
Invoke greater rights on victim to participate in proceedings, hire advocates, Track Progress of Case , Right to seek compensation asdasd
Need for Inquisitional Judicial System to comfort the Victim
Reform of police processes
Like processes of investigation,
Judges accountable
Constitutional provision to check corruption – impeachment
Has never been ever used
In spite of serious corruption charges against many
Case Study – Justice KARNAN
Steps to increase liability of judges
Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2012
Mechanism for investigating allegations of misbehaviour by judges
Also provisions like declaring assets, Oversight committee ( having executive )
National Judicial council will see administration of this law
Only for judges of SC & HC
Has lapsed – need to revamp this
#Judicial accountability # Over activism # NJAC # Corruption
Lokpal
Collegium system –
transparency
Search committee
Role of govt and IB in recommendations
Minutes of Meeting
RTI
Many courts still not covered ybder it
Information provided under it is limited, stiffled under the name of Independence of Judiciary and credibility of judges and judicial system
Need for rationalisation
Benefits – accountability, corruption, Appointment procedure, discrimination ( Karnan), Equality, Faith of people
Con – Dignity, CIC over it – Independence , Information may lead to populism – Hurting court decisions, Other issues of RTI – trivial, Blackmail
Joint Investigation ny CJI and CIC to induce transparency while maintaining independence of Authority
Nyaya Mitra – By ex- judges, ex- IAS officers – Need for Judiciary to actively coordinate with Nyaya Mitras
Will listen to complaints about judges and take it forward with Judiciary
No power to enforce
But still an institutional mechanism
Some states in US have a review commission for judges comprising of other judges, bar, govt, people which reviews the performance of judges in a non partisan basis
New York and Alaska have a system of evaluation by trained court observers who make unscheduled court visits. Judges are evaluated on their knowledge of law, integrity, communication skills, sentencing, impartiality
Why NJAC / MoP ? – ARTICLE 124 ( same as impeachment )
Separaton pf Powers not eroded by overlap
Article 142- Court enforcing its own decision – Executive
Article 145- SC can make rules for regulating practises and proedure of court as long as does not violate laws of the land
Primacy of Judiciary – Because Govt makes up for 50% of the total litigations in the court
Extra constitutional
Constitution – President shall consult as he deems necessary for the purpose
No accountability
In the collegium system
Justice Chelameshwar criticising lack of transparency in collegium
SC recent criticism about Judicial Over Activism
Public
Should have a say in appointment
All 3 limbs of govt source power from the people
Constitution also from the people
Various expert committees have recommended executive’s role from 2nd ARC to Law Commission
Other countries
UK has similar system as proposed by NJAC
US- judges nominated by president with approval from Senate then
Germany has election system – half votes from judiciary, half from legislature
Counter observations by Bench
To wholly eliminate executive’s role would be counter to constitutional principles
Hence, MoP in consultation with executive for
Transparency in selection criteria and eligibility of judges
Conclusion:
it appears that a review of the verdict by a larger bench is necessary.
The SC though ruled that a Memorandum of Procedure will be established by the centre in consultation with the SC for reforming the collegium
Yet controversy has risen again, with SC rejecting centres suggestions
AG to be a part of the collegium
Centre can reject collegium choices n the grounds of national security
Name of judges for consideration by collegium can be suggested by
All judges of the bench
Bar
AG
List will 1st be screened by a committee of 2 retired judges and an emminent person
Reforming Collegium Sysytem
Court agreed that reform is needed in collegium to increase transparency and accountability
Way out
Publish minutes of meeting of collegium online
Committee for shortlisting
Let a committee of ex-judges select make a list of shortlisted candidates
The list be put online
The public and the govt be invited to raise objections about the candidates
Let the committee mentioned above take a decision about it
Collegium expansion
Expand the collegium to include a third of judges of the HC/SC
Roughly 20 judges
Currently only 3-4 judges form form a part
The judges can be selected on rotation
Law ministry intervention
Currently, govt can reject the recommendation of the collegium once
But, if the collegium reiterates, the govt is bound to agree
Need now is for both sides to bring in public reasons for disagreement and reasons for support
Proposal – Expand Bench hearing a substantial constitutional amendment plea to a minimum of 13 judges
Constitution prescribes a minimum of 5
But was done when only 7 judges in SC
RECENT steps
Miniutes of Meeting to be published
Reasons for rejection to be published
SC – Higher courts can’t issue a mandamus on lower courts to pass a particular order. Even lower courts are covered under the doctrine of separation of power
SC accepts 40% of all cases pending – does not bode wel for a constitutional court
National Court of Appeal
Final court of justice in hearing appeals from High Courts
Pros
Allow SC to focus on Constitutional Cases
Decline of constitutional benches (having 5 or more judge )
Declined from 15% during 1950s to 0.1% now
Quality wise
Article 145 mandates a minimum of 5 judges for deciding any substantial case of constitutional law
Yet, major case like Shreya Singhal, Koushal case (377) done with 2 judges
The specialisde nature Would reduce pendency
60k odd pending cases arising out of appeals against HCs in SC NCA would ease the burden of top court
Geographical spread
NCA with 4 regional benches would reduce the time and cost borne by litigants in filing cases of appeals. – Daksha – Costs of litigations of 0.5% of GDP
This will improve accessibility to judiciary.
Hasa been recommended by the Law Commissions in the past and in the Vasanthkumar Case , SC showed Openness to the idea
A National Court of Appeal would require an amendment in Article 130 of the Constitution of India which may be inconsistent with Basic Structure doctrine
Short term costs such as recruiting new judges (already facing shortage), new infrastructure
SC may still invoke Special Leave Petitions ( Article 136) to hear the appeal cases
Will lead to duplication of efforts
Progress
Initial SC against the idea
But has now accepted to hear the litigation
UNDERTRIALS
Need to have national undertrial registry
Govt in process
Under-trial is a prisoner, accused of committing a crime, but yet to be ‘convicted’.
There are 2.5 lakh under-trial prisoners in India. They make up 66% of prison population in India (as of 2013)
Has led to Overcrowding of Prisons ( NCRB – 120 %)
Reasons for high number of under-trials:
Trial goes on for years, conviction rate is dismal.
Poor ‘accused’ can’t pay bail bond or hire good lawyers.
poor & illiterate unaware about the legal provisions of bails and bonds
High number of arrests. – Joginder Kumar case
Hussaina Khatun case – Released 30k undertrials
2005: CrPC ( Criminal Procedure Code) amended with New section 436A. Under-trial person must be released, IF he has spent 50% of the maximum period for the crime, if he was convicted.
But still, CrPC provisions are not fully implemented.
Supreme Court’s clear holding in the Narsimhulu case that bail is the rule and jail is the exception,
Therefore, SC ordered following (in 2014, September)
Untertrial review committee to be set up in each district comprising of DM, SP & District Judge
Free all the undertrials IF they’ve spent half the sentence, except cases where highest penalty is death.
Ordered the judicial officers to begin survey of under-trials in jails- from October 1st, 2014, and file report to their respective high courts.
Then Judge can free the under-trial on his personal bond with or without sureties.
More steps required
Proper work by NALSA to educate the undertrials
Role of NHRC
Performance of police stations should be judged on the basis of cases registered and prosecuted rather than on the basis of case registered
Also see Vision 365 Mains 2 Page 29
Focus on Overcrowding (120%- NCRB ) , Health, focus on RETRIBUTION rather than reform , e- Police , NHRC , D K Basu Guidelines, JS Verma Committee – CCTV cameras in Police stations and Jails
Case Studies – Parivartan program of AP – Focus on Reform – Rave reviews
Death sentence
Situation
140 out of the 193 UN countries have abolished death penalty
UN call for a moratorium on death sentence
India’s case
India sovereign to decide
Death penalth awarded only in the rarest of rarest case and after consideration of Mitigating Circumstances
Bachan Singh vs Govt of Punjab case , 1980
Yet, every year around 2000 death penalty in lower courts
Although, only 5% of them approved by the HC
Shows insensitivity and misuse by the lower court
Mitigating circumstances
Circumstances that lead up to the crime. t does not justify the crime but may reduce the severity of it
Law comission has recommmended banning death penalth except for terrorism related cases
Shatrughan Chauhan vs union of India case, SC laid down the rights of the inmates on death sentence
Delays in pardon/commutation ( article 78) amount to torture
No threshold provided
But the cases involved 10-15 years
Article 21 still valid even at the death bed
Crime under question is irrelevant
Reverses Bhullar judgement (2013) which said that delay argument can’t be invoked in anti-terror laws
SC observation – It is not upto the judiciary to decide Pardon . Should only oversee that fundamental rights of prisoner are not being violated – No judicial over activism
Cons
No conclusive evidence to show death penalth is a deterrent
No way for course correction – SC has acknowledged in 2009, that it has erred in awarding death penalty in past
Study by National Law University – 75% of death convicts come from poor class, caste or religion- can’t afford as the rich.
Given that relief comes at very late stage- can’t afford to pursue till the very end
Also may show institutional prejudice
Relations
Abu Salem – Portugal
UN – moratorium
Terrorists
Giving them death penalty makes them martyrs, in the eyes of radical muslims
Large crowd thronged in Yakub Menon’s funeral
Similar with Afzal Guru
They have ben forced to believe about the pleasures in their after life in heaven
Life imprisonment, denies them this benefit
In 1973, Britain decided not to impose death penalty on the IRA terrorists arguing that death penalty further incited violence, and made criminals cult figures
Ethics- An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind
Role of Criminal Judicial System is more to Reform than to Punish and abuse authority
Pro
5% fall in crime against women in 2015 vs 2014. After death penalty led stringent law
DIFFERCNCE between selection of Judges India, US
1) In both the countries, President appoints the judges. But, in India, President is being adviced by the Collegium of judges headed by the Chief Justice of India, whereas in the USA, President nominates judges, and with the advice and consent of the Senate, he/she appoints judges.
2) Alike USA, every judge in India is to be appointed by the President under his seal and warrant. But, usually the Collegium system administers the appointments and transfers of the higher judiciary like Supreme Court and High Court, and the judges to lower courts and District courts would be recruited through examination conducted by the High Court of the State concerned. Whereas in the USA, procedure of appointment of judges to higher as well as lower courts are same.
3) In the USA, in case of vacancy, the list of nomination would be prepared after a detailed inquiry and analysis of the conduct of judges by the State departments like Department of Justice, Committee on Judiciary, and agencies like FBI, whereas in India, judges will be selected by the Collegium system in a highly opaque manner.
4) There is strong checks and balances in the USA, as nominated judges are selected for appointment based on voting in the Senate, whereas in India, there is no kind of Legislative interference in the appointment of the Judges.
Lawyers hooliganism
R K Anand case
Judges can debar lawyers who collect money in the name of judges and those who attend court proceedings intoxicated
Action against lawyers who abuse judges
Based on this TN HC issued a notification
Helps in reducing pendency, reduced hooliganism
Con – can also punish a lawyer who complains about a judge to guys superior without proof
Using tools like Mediation, Arbitration and Conciliation
SriKrishna Committee recommendations
Specialist Arbitration benches
Arbitration Promotion Council of India be set up to grade Abbitral Institutes
Govt should look for Arbitration under National Litigation Policy, 2010
Indian Culture – Panchayat
Finds its basis in the Article 21 -SC Right to Fair and Speedy Trial
Article 39A
Committee on reforms of Criminal Justice in India
A suggestion under this could be dividing the penal code into four different codes: Social Offences Code,
Correctional Offences Code, Economic Offences Code and Indian Penal Code.
ü The Social Code includes matters of civil nature that can be settled without police intervention and
prison terms through administrative processes.
ü The Correctional Code includes offence punishable up to three years imprisonment where pleabargaining can be liberally invoked.
ü Economic Code includes property offences, which affect financial stability of the country dealt with
through combination of criminal and administrative strategies.
ü Indian Penal Code will include only major crimes warranting ten years imprisonment or more or death
Plea Bargaining – Written above
Lok Adalats
Positive
6 Lakh cases were resolved using it
Was part of Indian judicial system before British
Even now – Khap – But not right
Benefit – No advocate , cheaper (free), govt costs associated with procedural rigidities also saved, faster, reduces judicial burden, focus on concilliation does not impoverish relations, Same authority as Court Decree
Instrument of Inclusive Justice in accordance to article 39A
Why less successful ?
Other bodies – Khap Panchayats, Gram Nyayalalya,
3F
Aura of Court
Lack of Privacy in Lok Adalat
Focus on consent– which is not easy to reach
Gram Nyayalayas or village courts
Established under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 for speedy and easy access to justice system in the rural areas of India.
The Act came into force from 2 October 2009 but has not been enforced properly, with only 200 functional Gram Nyayalayas in the country against a target of 5000 such courts.
The major reason behind the non-enforcement includes financial constraints, reluctance of lawyers, police and other government officials.
Gram Nyayalaya are established generally at headquarter of every Panchayat at intermediate level
The Gram Nyayalayas are presided over by a Nyayadhikari,
The Court can function as a mobile court at any place
The Gram Nyayalayas have both civil and criminal jurisdiction over the offences. The pecuniary (monetary) jurisdiction of the Nyayalayas are fixed by the respective High Courts.
Gram Nyayalayas has been given power to accept certain evidences which would otherwise not be acceptable under Indian Evidence Act.
TELE Law initiative started to avail legal help on Telephones with the help of Pro-Bono Lawyers
Mediation/alternative Dispute Resolution in criminal cases : Rape
The Justice J.S. Verma Committee report put the case of rape in context of gender justice. However, the recent judgment of the Madras High Court of referring a case of rape to mediation raises serious concerns on how the crime of rape is perceived by the judiciary.
The judgement reinforces the social taboo and stereotypes regarding future of child born out of rape and seeing rape as only expression of lust.
What is Mediation and its unsuitability in this case
Mediation is a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) where a neutral mediator assists the parties concerned in arriving at a mutually agreeable settlement.
It is a mechanism that seeks to reduce the burden on the courts.
Active role of parties in the final outcome as opposed to a decision handed down from the judiciary.
Some degree of success in civil and matrimonial disputes, its applicability to criminal law is questionable.
Civil disputes involve private rights of parties in dispute while a criminal offence is against the rights of the victim as well as society because whole of society has an interest in preventing crimes. It provides scope for the abdication by the state of its duty to prosecute the accused. Also rape is a non compoundable offence ad parents of victim or victim had no right to settle the case.
Only minor criminal cases have been referred to mediation in the past.
Consent of all parties is vital to refer a case to mediation. In the current order of the High Court, the opinion of the survivor has been completely neglected and her consent has been disregarded.
An increasing dependence on ADR dilutes the authority of the court.
During mediation, parties should be aloof from any unbalanced coercion. One implicit coercion in this case is regarding the future of victim and child.
Any liberal approach in case of rape is against the dignity and honour of women according to SC
What should be done?
Adequate support for the victim to overcome trauma is what is needed
Previous judgements have highlighted the importance of giving an opportunity to survivor to be heard. This can be done by ensuring that a special public prosecutor is appointed if the case warrants so; to ensure that the survivor is represented through a counsel at all stages of the process and to ensure that there is witness protection.
NALSA
National Legal Services Authority of India
Headed by CJI
Provides free legal aid to women, children , poor, SC, ST, members in custody, etc
Based on 39A of the constitution
Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts and Commercial Courts Bill 2015
The Bill enables the creation of commercial divisions in high courts, and commercial courts in every district
commercial disputes involving an amount of Rs one crore or more.
Commercial appellate divisions: Commercial appellate divisions may be set up in all high courts to hear appeal
Time period for filing appeals: Such appeals to the commercial appellate division must be made within a period of 60 days of the order of the lower court.
Transfer of pending suits: All suits of a value of Rs one crore or more
Benefits
Ease of Doing Business – Ease of Enforcing contracts
Dakshsa – Costs to GDP of 0.5% , increased competitiveness
Financial capital
BIT- FDI issue
Augments exising capability , Tradicial judiciary can be mainstreamed for 3 crore pending litigations
Cons
Commercial definition – very wide – ma be misused for other civil cases as well
SR costs associated with transfer of cases
Act does not include new technologies – Old bottle in new wine
Conflict with regular courts
ELECTRONIC
The Union Cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister recently gave its approval for the second phase of eCourts Mission Mode Project at an estimated cost of Rs.1670 crore.
◾It envisages enhanced ICT enablement of courts through universal computerisation, use of cloud computing, digitization of case records and enhanced availability of e-services through e-filing, e-payment gateways and mobile applications etc.
Background:
◾The eCourts project of the Government is aimed at providing necessary hardware and software applications to enable courts to deliver e-services to citizens, and to enable the judiciary to better monitor and manage the functioning of courts.
◾In Phase I of the project more than 13000 District and Subordinate courts have been computerised and case information linked to the respective District court websites.
◾These courts are now providing online eServices such as cause lists, case status and judgments, to litigants and public through the eCourts portal.
◾Litigants and lawyers are also provided services through Judicial Service Centre at the court complexes. More than 24 crore transactions have already been recorded regarding online access of court information.
Phase 2:
◾The Phase II of the eCourts project would also help in the automation of workflow management in courts thereby contributing to better court and case management.
◾Touch screen based Kiosks and Video Conferencing facility will be installed at all Court Complexes and corresponding jails.
◾Hand held process service devices will be provided to process servers to ensure transparent and time bound delivery of court notices and summons. Also, the use of solar energy has been proposed at 5 percent of the court complexes on a pilot basis.
Curative Petition
A 2nd layer of review, after the initial review
Evolved by SC in 2002 in Hurra judgement
Why needed
If it is proven t that judge reviwing may have underlying biases
The aggrieved person has not been heard
If petioner establishes that there is violation of Natural Justice
To ensure that Curative petitions are rare rather than regular
They are first heard by a bench of 3 senior most judges along with the ones who presided over the review petition
Then majority votes
Used in Yakub Menon case, Naz foundation (section 377)
