-: [rti4empowerment] Fwd: [eGovINDIA] Fw: RE: [HumJanenge] Re: delay in courts

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ravindran Major <majorravi@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: [eGovINDIA] Fw: RE: [HumJanenge] Re: delay in courts
To: eGovINDIA@yahoogroups.com
Cc: supremecourt@nic.in, hckerala@nic.in, registrarcc@yahoo.co.in, shahsg@msn.com, scba@lexsite.com, bci.india@hub.nic.in

The suggestions given by Umesh reminds of the famous quip- cure worse than the problem, except of course the one on courts working in 2 shifts. In fact even Dr Kalam had suggested this when he was the President. Courts managing their own finances and election of judges are sure shot prescriptions to destruction.

What I would suggest is that every advocate should be given licence as an arbitrator and allowed to hear disputes between aggrieved parties and give decision. The licence should include their subject of specialisation and an accredition status provided by the bar council . Their fees should be regulated like that of doctors. Only if the decision of this first level redressal system is not acceptable should the matter go to a formal court.

Here the party aggrieved by the decision may consult any other advocate and get a formal petition prepared including the charge sheet but the filing in the court has to be done by the party only and not the advocate, though the details of the advocate preparing the petition should be on record to enable assessment of his competence later. Every court should have a panel of advocates whom the judge may consult, if need be, on any issue of law. (it would be better if this process is computerised and the latest 10 or 12 judgements involving the clauses under which the charges are made is available on a website for ready reference) But no advocate should be allowed to appear in any court representing any of the parties. This court may summon the parties or witnesses who had deposed before the advocate during the 1st stage. This may be done only once and in very rare case twice. The court's decision should be communicated not only to the parties but also to the bar council which should use the data to grade the advocates-both the one who had acted as arbitrator and the one who had prepared the petition. This grading should be reflected in the accredition status and the fees payable to the advocate and they should be renewed every three years. This certificate should be displayed in the office of every advocate in a manner that it will be visible to every visitor.

The final appeal, except in cases where the punishment is death or life imprisonment, should be to a bench of two judges at the district level.

The high court should be the final call in cases of death and life imprisonment sentences. Otherwise it should deal with issues of law referred to it by the district courts and intragovt disputes. The quality of the references from district judges should be evaluated to grade and appraise them and their compensation including scope of continued employment and promotion, should also be linked to this.

The apex court should only be involved in vetting the laws made by the parliament and the state legislative assemblies and enforcing correction.

The issue of poor quality of litigants, mentioned by S Roy is not understood. Invariably it is lawyers who appear in courts and if they are taking the litigants for a ride with the connivance of the judges why should the litigants be blamed?

P M Ravindran

On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Victor Cooper <victor99cooper@yahoo.com> wrote:

--- On Fri, 7/15/11, Hari Goyal <haridgoyal@hotmail.com> wrote:

From: Hari Goyal <haridgoyal@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: [HumJanenge] Re: delay in courts
To: "Vishal Kudchadkar" <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>, "Mukesh Sinha" <dwarkacity05@hotmail.com>
Cc: "Dr Goyal RTIDWARKA" <rtidwarka@yahoo.co.in>
Date: Friday, July 15, 2011, 7:12 AM

Dear Mr. Ramesh,

Your suggestions to reduce delay in court cases are well intended.

Let us understand that this problem is offshoot of Widespread Corruption in the system and divide of "Rich Corrupt India" and
"Poor Real India". Politicians, bureaucrats and majority of members of judiciary appear to have become purchasable commodities
by the rich including builders and realtors.

INCREASING THE INTEREST/PENALTY RATE

Out of many solutions, one easily workable solution is reforming of some laws. That is when the builders don't give possession of the
Property to the purchasers, the High Courts or Competition Appellate Tribunal should impose penalty interest @ of 24% or 30%
as the builders charge. Ministry of Corporate Affairs and other concernede Ministries must take this step which will definitely reduce
the number of cases to half or one fourth.

Similarly, RTI Act, 2005 must change the Section 20(1) of the Act. Instead of Rs. 25,000/- maximum penalty, it should be made equal to
two months salary of PIO who delay the information or give intentionally wrong and misleading information. This would stop delaying the
supply of sought information.

DR. HARI DEV GOYAL
INDIAN ECONOMIC SERVICE (1968 BATCH)
Former Professor of Economics in LBS National
Academy of Adeministration, Mussoorie &
Planning and investment Advisor, United Nations

Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 05:41:02 -0700
From: rurohatgi@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: delay in courts
To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
CC: sroy.mb@gmail.com

the delay in court can be handled soon and very simply.

1. Ask courts to be self sufficient means raise your own income in order to pay for your self no public subsidy.

2. second after two dates pay another court fees.

3. like in Gujarat have two sessions per day one from 7am to 3pm and other from 3 pm to 11pm.

4. judges should not be permanent only be elected for five year or four year term, in order to be reelected they had be prove efficient.

5. they should be asked to spend at least eight hours in courts per day like any other public servant.

6. Judges office staff should not allowed to interact with public at any time. if they do than their job must be taken away after three such instances, no mercy. and they should have llb passed assistants for writing the judgement.

7. jury system be adopted where as every adult should be required to appear, more public involvement and public be paid some allowance .

8. No permanent judges and their staff. more dead weight and permananncy brings more stagnation and no accountability to public.

there need to be Garaos of these permanent judges if they are not performing as per set standards.

with two paisa woth of my opinion.

umesh rashmi rohatgi

From: sarbajit roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com>
To: "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" <HumJanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2011 9:58 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Re: delay in courts

Dear Capt Beniwal

1) If a matter is admitted by the SC they almost invariably pass a
reasoned order.
2) Many a times matters are not admitted and disposed off at the
thresh hold. At such time there is no need to go into the law.

The PRIME problem with Indian courts is LITIGANTS. ... POOR QUALITY
LITIGANTS who have no business being in the courts in the first place.
Everything else (corrupt lawyers, corrupt judges, endemic delays,
corrupt registries etc etc flows from this )

Having been a veteran of pleading my own case in courts for almost 30
years now ("from traffic court to Supreme Court) I can say truthfully
that there is a great change taking place in the Courts BUT what to do
about POOR QUALITY LITIGANTS who only want to ABUSE THE LEGAL PROCESS
and cause GREAT DELAY.

Sarbajit

On Jul 15, 6:41 am, capt beniwal <trident...@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> Even supreme court judges do what you have said. Many of them are Law to themselves and DO NOT give any reason as to under whic law the case is decided.
>
> --- On Fri, 15/7/11, Vijay Kapoor <vijay99kap...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> From: Vijay Kapoor <vijay99kap...@yahoo.com>

> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] delay in courts
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> Date: Friday, 15 July, 2011, 5:14 AM
>
> There are still other (Shocking) reasons for delays in courts. Yes, it is the "honble" "judges" themselves.
> I have limited but sad direct experience of courts and "judges." Most of the "judges" themselseves go against the law. For instance, the Consumer Protection Act suggests that a non-complicated case should be disposed off in about 5 months, and that ordinarily no adjournment should be allowed, and if any is allowed, the reasons should be recorded in writing and costs of at least Rs. 500 should be awarded. However, most cases drag on for years, because the "judges" allow multiple adjournments on the flimsiest of grounds, without recording reasons in writing, and without allowing costs contrary to law.
>