Caught in Legal Wrangle
- Hueiyen Lanpao Editorial :: December 17 2012 -

At a time when new concept like free legal aid to poor litigants, which is in tune with the Constitutional mandate of equality before laws of all citizens, are gaining popularity in the justice delivery system of the country, it is sad to know that the doors of upper law court in volatile Manipur have been forced to remain shut to the litigants, regardless of their social standings, for more than a month now.

With over 250 high court lawyers in the State under the banner of All Manipur Bar Association abstaining from work at Imphal bench of Gauhati High Court since November 8 last in pursuance of their demands for appointment of seven judges instead of the proposed four judges in the upcoming new high court of Manipur and also for making the appointment from among the existing qualified judges in Manipur only, the normal functioning of Gauhati High Court has come to a grinding halt, paralyzing the justice delivery system completely.

The delegates of Bar Association had earlier called on and raised the issue with Supreme Court Judge A.K. Patnaik, who is in-charge of high courts in the Northeast, as well as with Union Law Minister Ashwani Kumar, but resolution of the matter still remained pending in the absence of any concrete assurance from the side of relevant authorities towards fulfilling the demands of the agitating lawyers.

With a history of case pendency in Manipur, there is definitely some merit in the argument of the agitating high court lawyers that the proposed four-judge system in the upcoming new State high court would be of no use in the effort of delivering justice on time to all those coming and knocking at the door of law court.

In fact, at present, there are over 6,000 cases pending in Manipur alone and this is a pretty amazing figure for a minuscule State like Manipur with a total population of 27 lakh people.

So creation of a separate high court without adequate judges would not only hamper in smooth functioning of the law court but also add to the already burdened problem of case pendency.

Moreover, a four-judge system would mean that whenever there is an appeal against a double bench ruling, the petitioners have to approach the Supreme Court to contest against it as it needs at least a three-bench panel to overrule a double bench ruling.

In that case, the very purpose of establishing a separate high court after long years of waiting stands defeated. Nonetheless, with the two parties remaining engrossed in a standoff, the poor litigants have been left in the lurch for over one month now as the living example of the legal maxim, 'Justice delayed is justice denied'.

So sad and so unfortunately true !