1
Submitted to the Union Minister of Law and Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India by
Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan, Chairman, Law Commission of India, on the 5th day of August, 2009.
The below text has been published under the express authority given by Government of India as noted at the end of the post.
The Law Commission has already given varied recommendations in its earlier reports on the subject of reforms in the judiciary, which is a subject very dear to my heart. The present Report is in the continuum of
those reports and has drawn on my very recent book titled The Judge Speaks.
3. The recommendations in this Report are the suggestions made by the Hon’ble Shri Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly, a Judge of the Supreme Court, which are as under:
[1] There must be full utilization of the court working hours. The judges must be punctual and lawyers must not be asking for adjournments, unless it is absolutely necessary. Grant of adjournment must be guided strictly by the provisions of Order 17 of the Civil Procedure Code.
[2] Many cases are filed on similar points and one judgment can decide a large number of cases. Such cases should be clubbed with the help of technology and used to dispose other such cases on a priority basis; this will substantially reduce the arrears. Similarly, old cases, many of which have become infructuous, can be separated and listed for hearing and their disposal normally will not take much time. Same ismain cases are disposed of. Such cases can be traced with the help of technology and disposed of very quickly.
[3] Judges must deliver judgments within a reasonable time and in that matter, the guidelines given by the apex court in the case of Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318 must be scrupulously observed, both in civil and criminal cases.
[4] Considering the staggering arrears, vacations in the higher judiciary must be curtailed by at least 10 to 15 days and the court working hours should be extended by at least half-anhour.
[5] Lawyers must curtail prolix and repetitive arguments and should supplement it by written notes. The length of the oral argument in any case should not exceed one hour and thirty minutes, unless the case involves complicated questions of law or interpretation of Constitution.
[6] Judgments must be clear and decisive and free from ambiguity, and should not generate further litigation.
[7] Lawyers must not resort to strike under any circumstances and must follow the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Harish Uppal (Ex-Capt.) v. Union of India reported in (2003) 2 SCC 45.
----------------------------------------
© Government of India
Law Commission of India
The text in this document (excluding the Government Logo) may be reproduced free of charge in any format
or medium provided that it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material
must be acknowledged as Government copyright and the title of the document specified. Any enquiries relating to this Report should be addressed to the Member-Secretary and sent either by post to the Law Commission of India, 2nd Floor, ILI Building, Bhagwan Das Road, New Delhi-110001, India or by email to lci-dla@nic.in

Post a Comment

  1. HEALTHY SUGGESTIONS. BUT THERE IS A LOT REMAINS TO BE LOOKED INTO

    ReplyDelete

Do not use abusive language

 
Top