Supreme Court Urges Timely Justice, Tech Adoption, Lawyer Accountability, and Structural Reforms

Krishnakant Tamrakar Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh

Krishnakant Tamrakar Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Delay in hearing of criminal appeals.
2. Timely appointment of judges.
3. Use of technology and better management practices.
4. Strikes by legal professionals.
5. Structural reforms in judicial administration.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in Hearing of Criminal Appeals:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of prolonged delays in hearing criminal appeals, particularly those pending for over ten years. The appellant's bail request was rejected by the High Court despite being in custody for more than ten years. The court emphasized that 'timely justice is essential for the Rule of Law' and referenced the fundamental right to access to justice under the Constitution of India and international conventions. The court discussed the need for practical, effective, and achievable systems for speedy disposal of appeals, citing various reports and recommendations for increasing judge strength and implementing case management practices.

2. Timely Appointment of Judges:
The judgment highlighted the importance of timely appointments of judges at all levels to ensure speedy justice. The court referred to the recommendations of the Law Commission and previous judgments emphasizing the need for timely filling up of vacancies. The court also discussed the need for a central selection mechanism for subordinate judiciary and improvements in the Collegium system for appointing judges to constitutional courts. The court noted that delays in appointments, especially of Chief Justices, adversely affect the judicial system.

3. Use of Technology and Better Management Practices:
The court underscored the role of technology in facilitating speedy trials and disposal of appeals. It recommended the use of electronic copies of documents, video conferencing for recording evidence, and better case management practices. The court also suggested the implementation of a National Arrears Grid to generate accurate judicial statistics and identify steps for dispensation of justice.

4. Strikes by Legal Professionals:
The judgment addressed the issue of frequent strikes by lawyers, which obstruct access to justice. The court reiterated that 'lawyers have no right to go on strike' and that such actions are unprofessional and amount to contempt of court. The court directed the Ministry of Law and Justice to compile information on strikes and present quarterly reports on the loss caused and actions proposed. The court suggested that office bearers of Bar Associations who call for strikes should be held accountable and may be restrained from appearing in court or removed from their positions.

5. Structural Reforms in Judicial Administration:
The court discussed the need for structural reforms to decongest constitutional courts and ensure speedy justice. It suggested the creation of alternative fora, such as Courts of Appeals, to handle certain categories of cases. The court also emphasized the need for an independent body of full-time experts to assist in identifying, scrutinizing, and evaluating candidates for judicial appointments and to oversee post-appointment performance.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to file an affidavit within three months addressing the observations made in the judgment. The court also called for the first report on strikes by June 30, 2018, and scheduled further consideration for July 4, 2018. The judgment underscored the fundamental right to speedy justice and the need for comprehensive reforms in the judicial system to address delays, improve appointment processes, leverage technology, and ensure accountability among legal professionals.