About 498A , that discussion is a separate issue.SriKumar wrote:How can a magistrate he held accountable? Is there any procedure for this in the normal course of their work (not talking about the new reality with the outrage). For example, does the current procedure have a reprimand, or for more serious things, a transfer.chaanakya wrote: Just make the accountable by setting stiff targets.
Also, is there any provision in Indian legal procedure where, a law passed by Lok Sabha is re-assessed for its goals and the actual consequences that come about, say 1 or 2 years from the time of passing? Can one build in an automatic provision that brings it up for discussion and public comment, and alteration, if necessary? The 498a case is an example. I hear that judges themselves are calling for changes due to misuse of the law, but no one seems to be able to do anything to modify it, even in a minor way. Fast-tracking, putting time limits, with limited resources is a guarantee that some innocent people will be found guilty. This issue must be addressed or written into the current system, but I am not for waiting till there is perfection; simply because we've waited for long enough (MHO). Some of this has to be handled after establishing the new courts and fast-track procedures and people have a chance to see how the system actually worked (cruel as this will be to the innocent people who get snared in the interim). This is one reason why it makes eminent sense to have an automatic assessment of a new law, some time after its passing.
Regarding making Judiciary accountable, I had two things in mind. Changes in CPC and CrPC. to streamline the whole investigation and proceedings/trial of civil and cirminal cases respectively.
The causes of delays have been identified. The required amendments are being carried out in piecemeal manner since any speeding up the process is met with stiff resistance from Advocates lobby. unfortunately bar councils and associations have failed to perform their role as regulatory and ethical body of professionals. There are recommendations which are fairly critical of them.Lawyers as a community failed to live up to the aspirations of Independent India though pre independent India they played a seminal role. It calls for self introspection.
The second point about accountability in other ways. How magistrates are accountable? True that in proceedings and trials they have their full independence within the ambit of the code. But they are subject to administrative control of High Courts. Registrar of High Court functions as administrative authority with Chief Judge and a collegium of senior judges overseeing their performance. They are also subject to vigilance. HC has dismissed many a corrupt magistrates.Constitutional protection is offered only to HC and Sc justices. The Lower Judiciary gets rapped if they transgress. but one can understand the limits as well. Ordinary citizens dont get a voice or have very limited interface with judiciary if they face a wayward judge, whose number, unfortunately, is increasing. The High courts can and have issued instructions for speedy disposal of cases. The need is to set administrative norms and fix responsibility. Several magistrates face disciplinary actions and even termination is ordered by the Collegium. but by and large they tend to protect their own brethren.
HC can set up monitoring cells to assess the rate of disposals. One Vijayawada example is quoted in my earlier post. Monitoring of cases must be computerised and Govt has already initiated E-Courts programme and like everything else it is taking its own sweet time. SO far judgements and cause lists have come online. Need is to bring the whole system on Comouterised filing and disposal system.
The public should get a structured gateway to complain against the judges if they delay frivously and grant adjournments. Right now litigants have to approach higher courts for a direction. This could be handled administratively and also when procedures are simplified and vagueness is removed they would have less freedom to delay the proceedings.
The conduct rules and Subordinate Judicial Services Rules need to be changed to reflect some of the ideas which may be brought up in the discussion.