Let us democratise Justice: Voice of Justice Seekers

P. Sharatchandra Singh *

High Court Complex at Chingmeirong Imphal on April 07 2012 :: Pix - Bullu Raj

"Public confidence in the judicial system and in the moral authority and integrity of the judiciary is of the utmost importance in a modern democratic society".
The Economic and Social Council, 2006

The 10th of December, 2014 - the 'International Human Rights Day' – is so special for Pakistan and India that two worriers for child rights, Malala (Pakistan) and Stayarthi (India) shared the Nobel Peace Prize 2014. It was the India-Pakistan 'Nobel Moment" in Oslo (Norway).

Nobel Laureate Satyarthi, while advocating democratisation of justice during his Nobel Prize speech, refused to accept that the laws and Constitutions, the police and the judges can't protect child rights.

Satyarthi's speech was a cue for many among the justice seekers to refuse to believe that judiciary can't deliver justice. Conversely, Satyarthi's experience shows that India still continues its struggle to establish a 'Democratic Republic' in its true sense and "to secure to all its citizens – justice, social, economic and political.....".

Sixty six years after Independence, India has plenty of laws but not enough justice. William E. Gladstone (1809 – 1898), one of the greatest English politicians and also former British Prime Minister, wrote, "Justice delayed is justice denied". In the words of K.G. Balakrishnan, former Chief Justice of India, "...the people's faith in the judicial system will begin to wane, because justice that is delayed is forgotten, excluded and finally discharged".

Soli Sorabjee, former Attorney General of India, in a lecture at the Nehru Centre in London, observed, "Justice delayed will not only be justice denied, it will also destroy the Rule of law"- a basic feature of the Constitution of India. People come to the court to seek justice. But they suffer, for no fault of theirs, and become victims of dilly-dallying in the Indian judicial system. The more they suffer, the more they lose faith in judiciary.

Recent years witnessed people taking law in their hands – a sort of the infamous 'mob justice' phenomenon which could be attributed to frustration, cynicism, and nihilism. It could further lead to anarchy. It is, therefore, high time for all the stakeholders to take stock of the situation and join hands in preventing collapse of the judicial system under its own weight.

The Indian legal system hinges on the principle of an independent and competent judiciary interpreting and applying the laws in a just and fair manner. The role of the judiciary is central to establishing the rule of law. Intrinsic to the concepts of 'justice' and 'rule of law' are the precepts that judges must safeguard the judiciary's sanctity, and uphold the law.

The 'rule against bias', or the 'principle of impartiality' demands that a judge (being the arbiter of justice) should dissociate himself/herself from deciding any case in which he or she may fairly be suspected to be biased. Emphasising the need for impartiality, Lord Dunning observed (1968), "Justice must be rooted in confidence and confidence is destroyed when right – minded people go away thinking "The Judge was biased".

In the words of Lord Hewart, the Lord C J of England and Wales, "it is not merely of some importance, but of fundamental importance that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly be seen to be done". CJ of the United States, Warren E. Burger stated in an address to the American Bar Association (1970): "A sense of confidence in the courts is essential to maintain the fabric of ordered liberty for a free people. That confidence is destroyed and incalculable damage done to society when the people come to believe that courts cannot vindicate their legal rights from fraud and over – reaching; that law cannot fulfil its primary function to protect them and their families".

The Code of Conduct for the US Judges initially adopted in 1973 provides that a Judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary, avoid impropriety, and perform the official duties impartially.

The Canadian Judicial Council (2004) prescribes certain ethical principles for Judges, e.g. rejecting any attempt to influence their decisions and exhibiting high standards of judicial conduct. Justice demands that Judges should be free from conflict of interest – conflict between their personal/family interest and their duty.

The real test is whether the justice seekers would have any reasonable apprehension of bias or lack of impartiality in the judge. A commentary on the California Code of Judicial Ethics (2013) suggests that "public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary is maintained by the adherence of each judge to this responsibility". Therefore, the "basic function of an independent, impartial, and honourable judiciary is to maintain the utmost integrity in decision making......".

Eminent judges and lawyers often lament the ever mounting pile of cases - more than 5 crore cases pending in about 10,000 courts across the country –, adjournments at the drop of a hat, and judicial scandals reported sporadically. For obvious reasons, a judge's conduct is bound to be the subject of public scrutiny.

The Indian Constitution and a wide range of statutes enshrine a strong commitment to equality before the law and equal protection of the law. This commitment is, therefore, intrinsic to delivery of justice in a free and fair manner and judicial impartiality – democratising justice in essence.

The onus is on the higher judiciary to promote and demonstrate high standards of judicial conduct towards assuring the much desired independence and impartiality of the judiciary.