full peech of SPEECH OF SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND, JUDGE, MADRAS HIGH COURT  IN 12   th STATE CONFERENCE OF ALL INDIA LAWYERS UNION (AP)  12.08.2023 My dear friends and elders on the

SPEECH OF SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND,

JUDGE, MADRAS HIGH COURT

 IN 12   ^th STATE CONFERENCE OF ALL INDIA LAWYERS UNION (AP) 

12.08.2023

My dear friends and elders on the stage and among the audience, Advocates, activists participating in this conference and journalists covering it, ladies and gentlemen.

I am very happy being among you all who are like my extended family amidst whom I played several roles as a student union leader, an active advocate, bar council member and as a Judge. Now being involved in the role of being a high court judge elsewhere, i couldn’t find enough time to enjoy the smell of the native breeze. I usually remain away from private functions but couldn’t turn down the invitation of All india lawyers union AILU andhrapradesh state committee as its past track record is worthy enough with Pro bono legal aid to poor and vulnerable segments of the society, raising the bar of ethics and integrity in work culture and its avowed spirit derived from concepts of democracy, secularism, Justice and socialism which are all precious tenets imbibed in our constitutional ideals.

In this era of globalisation, climate crisis and threats to democratic functioning of systems everywhere throughout the globe, the role of conscience keeping civil society groups and professional bodies became much more crucial and valuable. In this context the role of Advocates at individual level and of forums such as AILU becomes much more vital.

Recently I read an interesting quote by famous Nobel laureate Scientist

Erwin Schrodinger.

He says.

“The task is, not so much

to see what

no one has yet seen;

But to think what nobody

has yet thought,

about that which everybody sees.”

That can be translated into Telugu as: ఎవ ర ఇప టద క చ డనద మన మ ద గ చ డగలగడ క ద , ఇప డ! మన పన.

అ దర%క& కనప)స +న, వషయ గ ర% చ ఇ తవరక2 ఎవ ర ఆల4చ చన వధ గ ఆల4చ చడమ7 ఇప డ! మన చ9య:ల<న పన.

This could be applied to few of the predicaments we encounter in our roles as members of bar or bench.

I will share with you now my recent experience about an interaction at a function in Chennai where I attended as a Judge. A young lawyer has posed an interesting question to me seeking an answer. He asked me, “Sir, why do courts usually take too much time to dispose of litigation when it is linked to ordinary people whereas speedy justice is served when celebrities or corporate interests are involved.  I appreciated his boldness and told him that to some extent, his doubt is genuine and true.  But it is a multi factorial issue which can’t be solely resolved by the judiciary alone.  I had no time to give him an elaborate explanation at that moment. Yet His question still haunts me. This crucial issue of large case burden awaiting resolution since decades, the slow rate of recruitment of staff and appointment of judges corresponding to the load of cases pending with the courts must be addressed by concerted efforts of all stake holders including the Bench, the Bar, the executive and the legislature wings of the state.  Higher judiciary preoccupied with the ever increasing celebrities and corporate companies cases burden are facing time constraints in addressing the long pending cases of ordinary citizens.

As pointed out rightly by the young lawyer mentioned earlier, Some

celebrities or politically well connected clients or litigants can afford to engage the services of few top notch legal eagles to deal with their cases which are heard at a stretch and sorted out quickly or if they want, unusual delay tactics played utilizing some procedural lapses. But this sort of quick service is not available to ordinary citizens for obvious reasons and financial constraints. The pending cases are increasing because of this scenario too. If not answered properly , and swiftly adopting some creative measures such as lok adalats, arbitration and conciliation proceedings the public will someday look at the whole justice delivery mechanism with doubt, suspicion and scepticism. Here comes the role of organisations such as AILU in educating and preparing our Advocates to bring our justice delivery system from out of this crisis of excessive delay. Avoiding procrastination, repeated stays and adopting time bound disposal of cases on priority basis is the need of the hour. This issue of delay in delivery of Justice must be addressed by bar and bench together by perpetually evolving and updating effective methods in providing speedy relief to litigants with some proactive and creative innovations by avoiding the procedural manoeuvres.

Indian population crossed 140 crores milestone and the nation has became the most populous country in the world. Our economy too has crossed the 3 trilion dollar mark. Amidst such positive numbers showing our strength we are facing a negative trend in another front. India now has more than 5 crore pending cases across all courts in the country. This huge burden of case pendency is a serious matter of concern.

In the book “The Rule of Law”, an eminent British judge Thomas Bingham extensively discusses about the impact of delay in resolution of cases in a chapter on “Dispute resolution”. He says

“Delay is not only undesirable in itself but also exacerbates the problem of expense, since experience clearly shows that the longer a case drags on, the more it costs.”

He further expresses his opinion that

“If denial of legal protection to the poor litigant who cannot afford to pay is one enemy to the rule of law, delay in according a remedy is another.”

If this malady of delay in justice leading to denial of justice is not dealt with seriously, frustrated public would look towards extra constitutional agencies and anti social elements who provide rough and ready justice at a lower cost. That scenario complicates further the law and order scenario triggering social unrest and chaos.

Thus, we the responsible and vital arms of law, the bar and bench must be vigilant in taking up our responsibilities seriously showing utmost professional commitment.

The quantity of pending cases and the burden of their disposal with qualitative adjudication is a Herculean task before the system as it is directly proportional to the quantity and quality of the bar and bench. Lawyers seeking more dates would automatically delay the case resolution. So you must train your fraternity to speed up the process of advocacy as Advocates unions. Frequent skill enhancement sessions and workshops should be conducted with the help of seniors to harness the sharpness of junior lawyers

Regarding the quantity and quality of bench, various recommendations are made at regular intervals by the law commission, the parliamentary standing committees and other relevant bodies. Present Collegium system of appointment of higher judiciary need to take into consideration, the resolutions and recommendations of various legal organisations and parliamentary committees so as to enhance and ensure quality in appointments. One such recommendation recently made by the parliamentary standing committee on personnel, public grievances, law and justice is worth consideration and wider debate.

In the ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE

Point  8. Mentions as follows:

The Committee during its deliberations on this issue was of the unanimous view that the representation of marginalized sections of the society, women and minorities in higher Judiciary is abysmally low. As the Collegium is responsible for making recommendations for appointment to the Higher Judiciary, the onus is on them to ensure adequate representation for those sections of society.

Point 9.

Underling the need to have diversity in the higher judiciary, one of the Members of the Committee, Shri P. Wilson has made the following observations: “Judicial diversity is fundamental to the quality of judging. This poor representation of many social groups may mean their rights are not being properly safeguarded, and may eventually lead to the infringement and violation of their rights. People of this country are afraid that a very narrow, homogeneous group of Judges belonging to certain classes will not reflect the views and values of society as a whole, particularly on issues involving diverse, cultural and generational matters because they would require more perspectives, as the Judges would interpret and enforce law based on their own background. A more diverse judiciary is desirable because without one, the chances are greatly increased for violation of the rights on these under represented sections and could indirectly imply discrimination.”

Point  10.

He has forcefully advocated that the diversity improves the quality of judgments and on the issue of ‘merit’ as the sole criteria for the selection of judges he has made the following observations:

“It has been observed that, sometimes, in order to deny diversity at the Bench, ‘merit’ is used as a proxy to justify the retention of a particular class or community of persons as Judges. A judiciary that markedly fails to reflect the social composition of the nation possesses a serious constitutional challenge. A bench that reflects society is pivotal to fostering public confidence in the ability of the Courts to make sound, responsive decisions. For the public to perceive our Court system as impartial and accessible, the judiciary must reflect the diverse population affected by its decisions. On some level, we have been aware all along that there are hidden biases surrounding the society. It explains why people would appreciate a Bench that includes people more like them, who can appreciate their lived realities and listen with connection.”

As per the data provided by the Government on the social status of the Judges of the High Courts and otherwise also, it can be seen that our higher judiciary suffers from a ‘diversity deficit’. The representation of SCs, STs, OBCs, Women, and Minorities in the higher judiciary is far below the desired levels and does not reflect the social diversity of the country. In recent years there has been a declining trend in representation from all the marginalized sections of Indian society.

As per the data furnished by the Ministry of Justice to the Parliamentary

Committee, social status of the High Court Judges appointed since 2018:

Sl. No.	Year	No.of Appointments	General	SC	ST	OBC	Women	Minority	N.A*
1	2023	61	37	3	2	15	9	4	0
2	2022	165	137	6	0	17	34	5	0
3	2021	120	85	2	4	16	17	13	0
4	2020	66	52	2	0	11	13	1	0
5	2019	81	64	3	1	8	7	3	2
6	2018	108	82	2	2	5	11	6	11
Total		601	457	18	9	72	91	32	13

Though there is no provision for reservation in the judicial appointments at High Courts and Supreme Court level, the Committee feels that adequate

representation of various sections of Indian society will further strengthen the trust, credibility, and acceptability of the Judiciary among the citizens.

Some members of the Committee have, accordingly, demanded

constitutional amendment for ensuring representation of SCs/STs/OBCs in the higher judiciary.

These and few other such recommendations seeking social diversity criteria in judges appointment were placed before the parliament recently. This was based on the data which clearly shows in the High court judges appointments in the last 5 years period clearly judges belonging to SC, ST, OBC etc segments are very marginal in number.

This is one crucial issue which forums such as AILU need to discuss thoroughly and send their resolutions to relevant authorities seeking consideration in the interest of society at large. I hope this meet will bring out healthy results and establish the great moral values in our legal fraternity following the tenets and work culture of great jurists and judges of past such as Babasaheb Ambedkar, Justice Krishna Iyer and such other stalwarts. Wish you all good physical health and great professional strength.