Supreme Court Justices Adarsh K Goel and Uday U Lalit who occupy Court Number 11 have come to embody the core character of the apex court – landmark orders, razor-sharp scrutiny and quick decisions.
A lawyer in their court faces the bench’s experience of nearly 30 years of each as advocates. A volley of questions is typically seen in their files, and once these are correctly answered, an order takes mere days if not less.
Over the past 15 months or so, this bench has handled a variety of sensitive subjects and issued orders in cases which have most often seen only adjournments earlier .
CCTV Cameras In District Courts, Tribunals
Justice Goel and Justice Lalit, made a bold decision to allow cameras into courtrooms in a ruling in March 2017, a decision which addressed years of reluctance on behalf of the judiciary to let cameras enter its courtrooms.
The bench ordered that CCTV cameras be installed in at the minimum two districts across all states and union territories in order to record court proceedings. The judges have noted that initially the process will begin with two districts and thereon implemented in others .
The judges passed the ruling keeping mind the need for transparency and better case management.
With this order a long-standing disagreement between the Centre and the top judiciary on this issue has been set to rest. From August 2013 onwards, Union Law Ministers have sent requests to the then Chief Justices of India at least three times to consider recording court proceedings . But SC judges have been expressing reluctance with the latest communication in August 2016 stating a “wider consultation” was necessary before the final decision.
Several PILs have been also earlier demanded such audio-video recording and the Law Commission has also supported the idea.
Deadlines For Bail Petitions And Lower Court Trials
Passing an unprecedented order in March 2017, the bench comprising Justices Goel and Lalit have set a deadline of one week for sessions court to resolve bail applications and two years to dispose cases involving serious crimes. The court has further ordered that all trials pending for five years or more must be decided by end-2017
According to data available, there are currently over 43 lakh cases pending for five years or more as recorded at the end of 2015, and 3,599 undertrials have remained in custody for over five years.
Referring to these backlog numbers, the judges have said that an action plan must be created to achieve targets set by judicial officers, which would get reflected in their annual confidential reports (ACRs).
Introduction of video-conferences For Matrimonial Cases
The judges ordered that video-conferencing could be used in cases where an estranged couple are residing in different cities while battling matrimonial cases against each other.
Their intention with this order was to employ latest technological tools for providing access to justice and provide equitable justice to both husband and wife.
In the opinion of Justices Goel and Lalit, using video-conferencing was an efficient alternative to transferring a trial to one court to another, which would inconvenience either one of the parties.
However this order was set aside three-judge bench with 2:1 majority. Subsequently, a larger bench led by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, reviewed this order.
The bench of the CJI and Justice Khanwilkar, ruled a trial video-conferencing would reduce the chances of reconciliation between the two parties, and was also not in sync with the provisions of the Family Court Act, which mandates in-camera hearings.
Despite this order, Justices Goel and Lalit have started recording court proceedings involving transfer petitions after receiving undertaking from parties involves that they do not object to such recordings.
New Guidelines For Anti-Dowry Cases
The bench expressing the concern regarding the “gross abuse of Section 498A in the IPC “, under which not just the husband also his family members are charged by a woman complainant, has ruled that
- No arrest be “normally be effected” without verifying allegations
- Family welfare committees be constituted in every district to verify the allegations
- Eliminate the requirement of personal appearances of all family members on each and every date of hearing
- Court appearances be permitted by video conferencing
- Police officials be trained to deal with dowry harassment cases.
Several women’s rights groups protested this ruling while some lawyers raised worries of the anti-dowry law getting diluted. A bench led by the CJI has also questioned the order issued and in a separate case, CJI Misra has indicated that he would be reviewing the matter.
Wait Period Reduced For Mutual Consent Divorce
A September 2017 ruling by Justices Goel and Lalit has cut down the mandatory waiting period for divorce by a period of six months in cases involving divorce through mutual consent.
Under the Hindu Marriage Act couples must to stay apart for at least 18 months before they can part with mutual consent
The bench noted that Section 13B in the Act (divorce through mutual consent) had been enacted to help parties dissolve a marriage by consent in cases when the marriage has irretrievably broken down, and therefore such “forcible perpetuation” of the matrimonial status between unwilling partners would not serve any purpose.
The Court acknowledged that while every effort must be made to save a marriage but “if there are no chances of reunion and there are chances of fresh rehabilitation”, the Court must not be powerless to enable the parties to have a better option.
‘ASTRONOMICAL’ LAWYERS’ FEE VS ACCESS TO JUSTICE
Justices Goel and Lalit have expressed concern regarding the astronomical fees demanded by lawyers and in a ruling passed in December 2017, have proposed the ideal of establishing a ceiling on lawyers’ fees.
The judges noted that such fees were a barrier to access to justice and deprived poor litigants the right to have suitable representation in courts.
Delivering Justice With A Modern Outlook
The Justices have been granted the authority under Article 142 of the Constitution to pass order “for doing complete justice”. By their various orders, Justices Goel and Lalit have shown the determination and the will to effect positive changes in India’s justice delivery system.
