judicial gandhigiri: bombay hc shows the way

In a bid to “reform” the wayward people, particularly the young ones, of late, many a person and an institution concerned have been trying a variety of new methods including the Gandhian. One such noteworthy attempt has been recently made by the Bombay High Court.

In a case of molestation and attempt to murder, the High Court on January 7 directed four youths from the suburb, Thane, to sweep public roads every week for six months in return for quashing police proceedings against them. The four accused had moved the High Court seeking quashing of the case filed against them in October last year.

According to the police, the four accused in an inebriated state during the Dasara procession had misbehaved with some women.

To this, what may be called as a major deviation from the settled and oft-repeated judicial procedure, a division bench comprising Justice R V More and Justice V L Achiliya directed the accused to sweep the public roads in Thane for eight hours every Sunday for the next six months under the supervision of a police officer.

However, the order of the High Court is likely to raise certain eyebrows among legal experts. A quash petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code though under the inherent powers of the High Court has to be exercised sparingly and cautiously vide 1997(2)SCC 397.

The relevant section 482 of Cr.P.C states : “Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

Apparently, the accused were facing the charges of molestation and attempt to murder. These offences are of a serious nature. Under section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, any attempt to commit an offence attracts half the punishment prescribed for that offence. Therefore, considering the fact that the punishment for murder is life imprisonment or death, the attempt to murder would attract half the life imprisonment. Besides, the accused were also facing the charge of molestation of women.

The high court seems to have been guided by the words, “... otherwise to secure the ends of justice.” appearing in section 482 of Cr.P.C while awarding rather the unusual punishment of sweeping the public roads of Thane for eight hours on Sundays for six months under the supervision of a police officer. Indeed, this is a very innovative step taken by the High Court, but it is likely to raise certain fundamental questions which the society, government and the judiciary will have to ponder over. First, is the punishment of road sweeping just enough for the alleged crimes which are heinous in nature? Second, by awarding this obviously light punishment, what message would go to the society, particularly to our womenfolk who are often targeted by the goons who indulge in crimes such as eve-teasing to acid-throwing to kidnapping, raping and killing? Third, will a solitary innovative be judicial decision, though praiseworthy, impact the crime-ridden society of today? And last but not the least, will the said judic

l order “secure the ends of justice” particularly in the light of the fact that recently the Parliament had to amend the Juvenile Justice Act to reduce the age of a juvenile from 18 years to 16 years after the minor accused in Nirbhaya case had not shown any sign of remorse even after conviction?

However, the matter certainly deserves a public debate. Huge backlog of cases True, a huge backlog of cases, both civil and criminals numbering about three crore, is a cause of worry not only for the courts but also for the governments. This problem has primarily to be tackled by the judiciary. The judiciary cries hoarse citing lack of infrastructure and insufficient number of judges and supporting staff as the main reasons for this phenomenon.

Of late, Lok Adalats have come a long way in reducing the backlog. In certain States, the courts are working in two shifts which have also helped in reducing the number of pending cases. Setting up of the special courts is yet another time-tested measure to bring down the pendency. Despite all these efforts the courts in the country continue to be overburdened by new cases filed every day. While some of them are definitely related to genuine grievances, most of others are either frivolous, revengeful or just filed to cause harassment.

Therefore, the crux of the problem lies in the nature and motive of the cases. In order to curtail the number of such case-less cases a process of judicial filtration is necessary.

All cases before posting for the full length trial or enquiry by a regular judge, may be scrutinised by a specially designated judicial officer to determine from the plaint and the supporting documents annexed thereto primarily whether the instant case falls under the category of frivolous, revengeful or counter-blast to the opponent’s case or one only to cause harassment to the defendant or accused. In fact, the courts may amend the relevant rules of civil and criminal procedure whereby they can make it mandatory to answer pointed questions like how many civil and criminal cases are pending or fought between the parties in last 10 years, reasons for completing investigation within a reasonable time, reasons for not filing final report or charge sheet in police cases within a reasonable time, etc.

Such an exercise would reveal the true intent of the litigant and enable the court to throw out all such cases at the threshold where the litigant has approached the court with unclean hands or with sinister motives. Indeed, it is high time we changed the perception of delivering justice the mechanism which is often wrongfully utilised by the unscrupulous elements for their personal gain.