NEW DELHI: The rising number of cases in India cannot be attributed to judges alone, Supreme Court judge Justice Ehsanuddin Amanullah said on Saturday, noting that delays in the justice system are often affected by the way lawyers argue and manage cases.
“There is absolutely no connection between a judge and the rate of disposition. It depends on the bar, how long they want to argue,” he said, adding that members of the legal profession should consider practices that contribute to delays, including lengthy arguments and frequent adjournments.
Speaking at the 5th ICA International Conference on “Arbitration in the Age of Globalisation”, Justice Amanullah said that judges are already dealing with a very large number of cases every day.
“At the lower court level, no judge has a case docket of less than 400 to 500 cases per day. In higher courts, the number is even higher,” he said.
The court’s chief justice said that while judges are required to sit in court for specified hours and listen to matters before them, they cannot always reduce the arguments presented by lawyers.
He said: “Many things are said about delaying and putting pressure on judges. But I will give you examples that judges have absolutely nothing to do with the backlog of cases. The judge must sit for certain hours. Is there a complaint that the judge does not sit? He rarely sits.”
He said that although judges may sometimes prevent lawyers from repeating arguments, they are obligated to allow them to present their case fully.
He said: “As a judge, can I stop a lawyer from arguing? Yes, sometimes I tell them that they are repeating and wasting time. But can I say that you have no reason or that your argument is ridiculous? No, because he may still say something relevant. I have to give him that space.”
He said that the duration of court proceedings often depends on the length of the pleadings presented by lawyers, which in turn affects the pace of adjudication of cases.
Justice Amanullah also cautioned against expecting judges to be intellectually dominant figures on the court.
He noted, “You never want or even desire a judge to be brilliant and masterful in his field, because then he will not listen to you. He must be impartial; he must be open-minded. Therefore, genius is not a requirement for a judge. Being fully knowledgeable, he will leave nothing to dispute.”
The Supreme Court judge was chairing a session on “Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms: A Catalyst for Global Economic Growth and Investor Confidence” during the conference.
This article was generated from an automated news feed without any modifications to the text.
