New Delhi, Apr 11 (PTI) Supreme Court judge Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah on Saturday said the mounting pendency of cases in India cannot be attributed solely to judges, observing that delays in the justice delivery system are often influenced by the manner in which lawyers argue and conduct cases.
“There is absolutely no connection between a judge and the disposal rate. It depends on the Bar, how long they want to argue,” he said, adding that members of the legal profession must introspect on practices that contribute to delays, including prolonged arguments and frequent adjournments.
Speaking at the 5th edition of the ICA International Conference on ‘Arbitration in the Era of Globalisation’, Justice Amanullah said judges already handle a very large number of cases every day.
“At the trial court level, no judge has a case roster of less than 400-500 matters daily. In the high courts, the number is even higher,” he said.
The top court judge said that while judges are required to sit in court for fixed hours and hear matters listed before them, they cannot always curtail arguments made by lawyers.
“A lot of things are said about pendency and the pressure on judges. But I will give you examples of how judges have absolutely nothing to do with the piling up of cases. A judge has to sit for certain hours. Is it a complaint that a judge doesn’t sit? Rarely,” he said.
He said that although judges may occasionally stop lawyers from repeating arguments, they are duty-bound to allow them to present their case fully.
“As a judge, can I stop a lawyer from arguing? Yes, sometimes I tell them they are repeating and wasting time. But can I say you don’t have the intellect or that your argument is absurd? No, because he may still say something relevant. I have to give him that space,” he said.
He said the duration of court proceedings often depends on the length of arguments presented by lawyers, which in turn affects the pace of case disposal.
Justice Amanullah also cautioned against expecting judges to be intellectually dominant figures in court.
“Never, never want or even desire a judge to be brilliant and the master in his field, because then he will not give you a hearing. He should be neutral; he should be open. So, brilliance is not a requirement for a judge. Being fully well-versed, he would leave nothing to argument,” he pointed out.
The Supreme Court judge was chairing a session on ‘ADR Mechanisms: A Catalyst for Global Economic Growth & Investor Confidence’ during the conference. PTI SKM RT RT
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.