Unlike US, India does not have statutory time limits.
Hyderabad High Court
By S A Ishaqui
Hyderabad, August 7: Jurists felt that rational and
non-mandatory time frames for different type of cases are the only
solution for dispensation of speedy justice to the people which is
mandated in the Constitution.
Legal experts said that India does not have general statutory time limits compared with the US Speedy Trial Act. The Civil Procedure Code and the Criminal Procedure Code have time frames for completing certain stages of the case. These statutes, however, generally do not prescribe time limits within which the overall case should be completed or each step in the trial should be concluded.
According to lawyers in city, the Constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial is an important safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration prior to the trial and to limit the possibilities that long delays will impair the ability of an accused to defend him.
Mr N. Ramachandra Rao, senior advocate and a member of the Bar Council, said that in view of the mounting arrears in trial courts there is a dire need of an effective and foolproof system for time-bound trials so that the victims can get speedy and qualitative justice.
Maintaining that justice hurried shouldn’t be justice buried, he said that it is an admitted fact that right now the Indian judiciary has been facing shortage of judges, staff and infrastructure. Without fulfilling these shortages, introduction of time frame for disposal of cases would lead to miscarriage of justice.
As of now, there are certain statues like Domestic Violence Act and Negotiable Instruments Act which facilitate time-bound trials. But in these cases also trial courts have been facing difficulty due to shortage of manpower, he noted.
Mr Ramachandra Rao pointed out that the Law Commission of India also had suggested a time frame for disposal of cases since from the stage of filing the case to the completion of trial, granting bails, examination of witnesses and cross examinations.
He said that fixing the time frame without providing the institutional support of having number of judges in accordance with the population ratio and sufficient supporting manpower would not yield desired results.
Mr Rao, who is also a BJP MLC, said that the Centre was focussing on constitution of tribunals to deal with certain cases to lessen the burden on higher courts.
It has been contemplating to increase number of judges in trial courts across the country which will pave way for fixation of time frame for disposal of cases.
Mr P. Subhash, an advocate practising in the Hyderabad High Court, said that countries like the US have limited mandatory time frames. However, India does not have general statutory time limits compared with the US.
He said case specific time-tables are used as standards, delay reduction methods and yardsticks for measuring delays in the system in various jurisdictions around the world, including the US, Canada and the UK.
SC favours time frame as guidelines
The Supreme Court, which is not in favour of mandatory time limits for disposal of cases at the initial stage, favours time frames as guidelines for courts.
A seven-member bench of the Supreme Court in 2002 in the case of P. Ramchandra Rao versus State of Karnataka held that mandatory time limits could not be prescribed by the court. Though the court was not in favour of mandatory time limits, it did not find problematic the use of time frames as guidelines.
A two-member bench comprising Justice A.K. Goel and Justice U.U. Lalit in a recent case observed that “speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure guaranteed under Article 21. This Constitutional right cannot be denied even on the plea of non-availability of financial resources.”
The bench has asked the High Courts to issue directions to subordinate courts to decide bail applications within a week and in cases where the accused is in custody, magisterial trial should be concluded within six months and sessions trial and sessions courts have to complete trials within two years. The bench said that cases, which are more than five years old, by the end of the year.
Legal experts said that India does not have general statutory time limits compared with the US Speedy Trial Act. The Civil Procedure Code and the Criminal Procedure Code have time frames for completing certain stages of the case. These statutes, however, generally do not prescribe time limits within which the overall case should be completed or each step in the trial should be concluded.
According to lawyers in city, the Constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial is an important safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration prior to the trial and to limit the possibilities that long delays will impair the ability of an accused to defend him.
Mr N. Ramachandra Rao, senior advocate and a member of the Bar Council, said that in view of the mounting arrears in trial courts there is a dire need of an effective and foolproof system for time-bound trials so that the victims can get speedy and qualitative justice.
Maintaining that justice hurried shouldn’t be justice buried, he said that it is an admitted fact that right now the Indian judiciary has been facing shortage of judges, staff and infrastructure. Without fulfilling these shortages, introduction of time frame for disposal of cases would lead to miscarriage of justice.
As of now, there are certain statues like Domestic Violence Act and Negotiable Instruments Act which facilitate time-bound trials. But in these cases also trial courts have been facing difficulty due to shortage of manpower, he noted.
Mr Ramachandra Rao pointed out that the Law Commission of India also had suggested a time frame for disposal of cases since from the stage of filing the case to the completion of trial, granting bails, examination of witnesses and cross examinations.
He said that fixing the time frame without providing the institutional support of having number of judges in accordance with the population ratio and sufficient supporting manpower would not yield desired results.
Mr Rao, who is also a BJP MLC, said that the Centre was focussing on constitution of tribunals to deal with certain cases to lessen the burden on higher courts.
It has been contemplating to increase number of judges in trial courts across the country which will pave way for fixation of time frame for disposal of cases.
Mr P. Subhash, an advocate practising in the Hyderabad High Court, said that countries like the US have limited mandatory time frames. However, India does not have general statutory time limits compared with the US.
He said case specific time-tables are used as standards, delay reduction methods and yardsticks for measuring delays in the system in various jurisdictions around the world, including the US, Canada and the UK.
SC favours time frame as guidelines
The Supreme Court, which is not in favour of mandatory time limits for disposal of cases at the initial stage, favours time frames as guidelines for courts.
A seven-member bench of the Supreme Court in 2002 in the case of P. Ramchandra Rao versus State of Karnataka held that mandatory time limits could not be prescribed by the court. Though the court was not in favour of mandatory time limits, it did not find problematic the use of time frames as guidelines.
A two-member bench comprising Justice A.K. Goel and Justice U.U. Lalit in a recent case observed that “speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure guaranteed under Article 21. This Constitutional right cannot be denied even on the plea of non-availability of financial resources.”
The bench has asked the High Courts to issue directions to subordinate courts to decide bail applications within a week and in cases where the accused is in custody, magisterial trial should be concluded within six months and sessions trial and sessions courts have to complete trials within two years. The bench said that cases, which are more than five years old, by the end of the year.
No comments:
Post a Comment