High Court bench is half full

The professional advocate is much maligned. He is not only the picture of the liar, the leech and the guy who would pave the pathway to hell, he is also the guy who is constantly responsible for the inordinate delay in the system and as the guy who is at his inventive best when he is asking for an adjournment. While this image is extremely popular, it may not be accurate.
Clients ever so often pressurise their lawyers with a request that a pending case be listed and disposed of . Some of the desperate ones also tell the lawyer “we do not mind even if we are to lose the case but please give it a finality.”

The lawyer is thrown often into the ethical dilemma as to whether he must take the desperate request of the client literally or perceive it as just a frustration. This is not to say that lawyers do not lie or do not find excuses in the course of seeking adjournments. Many would justify this as a step to protect their clients or that they are a prey to strategy of a counsel on the other side whose attempt at procrastination is not for personal gain but for that of the client. So while adjournments and delays are the favourite whip for all to employ on lawyers, the problem sure lies elsewhere and instead of addressing it the Executive is seen moving in the opposite direction.

The state Chief Justice in his independence day address spoke about docket explosion and managing the challenge. This clearly shows that the problem has rolled onto unmanageable levels. Take the example of the comment of Justice AP Shah who pointed out that it would take 466 years for the Delhi High Court alone to clear its vacancies!! These are staggering figures.

The editorial of a leading English daily recently referred to this problem and the same is staring at the litigant in the state of Andhra Pradesh. The year has witnessed the retirement of 14 judges and with a few vacancies it inherited earlier the shelf is nearly half empty. This is alarming scenario that we are required to combat. With the sanctioned strength near 50, the actual strength today is 25 which means that the court works to half its capacity.

The problem is across the country and also not just one of numbers. While on the one hand the debate on how to go about selecting judges is on, there is a brewing controversy on the role that the judiciary should play in selecting members to its higher echelons . While those in the judiciary would obviously speak in favour of an exclusive say in the matter, the Executive has been pointing out that such interpretation is at best one at the behest of the judiciary and does not have its roots in the language or intent of the constitution. The debate is on and there is no immediate light in the end of the tunnel.

The collegium that recommends the panel of names is often caught in a dilemma. For instance, in Andhra Pradesh, for a while the collegium had the challenge of senior judges on the verge of their retirement and therefore they deemed it part of propriety not to name persons on the eve of their departure. Now the court has a new chief justice who is yet to familiarise himself with the Bar and therefore would take his time in picking lawyers for the job. Certainly similar problems must exist in other states too.

It is fundamentally and rightly said that with the population of the country and the pending cases ( about 40 lakh ) the board strength ( of about 907 ) judges is woefully inadequate. Stated otherwise, can you imagine that the entire country has less than 1000 judges to deal with constitutional issues, civil and criminal appeals, election petition and company petitions and other issues that beg for adjudication on a day to day basis.

If one third of the already skeletal strength is unfilled in our state it is about 50%. It is all very fine to blame the lawyer. Who will advocate the cause of the lawyer? Poor guy, he is defenceless.