DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY : I was only saying that there should be a law that anybody who has been a member of a political party for more than five years cannot be a Judge.
PROF. SAIFUDDIN SOZ : It is a good suggestion for future.
DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY : I say this only because there is a practice that if you want to harass your political opponents, you appoint a Special Court and appoint a partyman as a Judge of that Special Court. (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Please do not interrupt. He is not yielding. Please sit down.
... (Interruptions)
... (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN (DR. LAXMINARAYAN PANDEY): Please sit down.
... (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shri Baalu, please sit down.
... (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: This is not going on record.
(Interruptions)*
MR. CHAIRMAN: Please sit down.
... (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: This is not going on record.
(Interruptions) *
MR. CHAIRMAN: Please sit down.
DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY: Sir, I was only making a general comment.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You have made your point. Please conclude now.
DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY : I was only making a general comment. I thought that they would welcome it.
... **
Therefore, I would conclude by saying that the Minister should answer about the Benches with particular reference to Madurai; and secondly, he should answer as to whether he would consider bringing forward a law which would say that anybody who has been a member of a political party for more than five years cannot be appointed as a Judge.
____________________________________________________________________________
* Not recorded
** Expunged as ordered by the Chair
PROF. SAIFUDDIN SOZ:
Sir, I am on a point of order.
MR. CHAIRMAN: What is your point of order?
PROF. SAIFUDDIN SOZ : Sir, your immediate predecessor in the Chair observed that - I had raised the question - the Foreign Minister would make a statement on the situation in Iraq. He made an observation - it is a sort of a judgment - that after the matters under Rule 377, the Foreign Minister will come and make a comprehensive statement. So, that is the business before the House now.
This is what he observed and you can see the record. I raised that question. Therefore, now, Shri Jaswant Singh, the Foreign Minister should come and make the statement. Avoiding the situation at home, America has done this vulgarity and indulged in vandalism.
It is his observation that a comprehensive statement will be made by the Foreign Minister. That is the business before the House now. ... (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: I request the Government to say something. ... (Interruptions)
PROF. SAIFUDDIN SOZ : He made a statement like that. ... (Interruptions) I understand that it is on record. ... (Interruptions) If Shri Advani is prepared to make a statement, it is okay. ... (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN: I requested the Government; they will come forward with that.
PROF. SAIFUDDIN SOZ :
The hon. Home Minister should know what happened. The Chair observed that a comprehensive statement would be made after the matters under Rule 377.
... (´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
... (´ªÉ´ÉvÉÉxÉ)
PROF. SAIFUDDIN SOZ : I raised it and the Chair said so.
SHRI L.K. ADVANI: I do not know. I am not aware.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I will convey your comment.
PROF. SAIFUDDIN SOZ : That is the business now. He said that after the matters under Rule 377, the Foreign Minister will come and make a comprehensive statement.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, the hon. Speaker has to decide.
PROF. SAIFUDDIN SOZ : That is on record.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Speaker has to decide. Now, the Law Minister.
In the last Session, we had increased the salaries of High Court and Supreme Court Judges. Based on that, we had promulgated an Ordinance giving effect to their pension also. In connection with that, I have brought forward this Bill for consideration and passing. That is a simple one.
When we had increased the salaries of Judges, proportionately, we had increased the pension for the Judges. Secondly, it is regarding rent also. You know as to what is the prevailing rent of houses in Delhi and in most of the cities. Therefore, in order to enhance the rent, I have brought forward this Bill.
While the Members were expressing their views, Shri Motilal Vora started expressing his concern about the existing judicial system, the prevailing conditions in our country, how common men are facing problems with regard to judiciary, etc.
At the outset, I would like to express my gratitude to the hon. Members for rendering their whole-hearted support to the Bill. Their suggestions would be utilised in the policy planning and its implementation by the Department of Justice in the future. During the debate, Shri Motilal Vora, Shri Ajoy Chakraborty, Shri Prabhunath Singh, Shri Chandrasekhar Sahu, Prof. Kurien, Prof. Jogendra Kawade, Shri P.C. Gehlot, Shri N.K. Premachandran, Shri K. Rosaiah, Shri S.P. Jain, Shri T.R. Baalu, Shri B.M. Mensinkai, Prof. Ajit Kumar Mehta, Shri Mallikarjunaiah, Shri Varkala Radhakrishnan, Prof. Saifuddin Soz, Shri K. Bapiraju, Dr. Subramanian Swamy and others gave their valuable suggestions. They have raised certain issues. The issues that were focussed during the discussions mainly relate to the pendency of cases, shortage of judicial officers and judges, modernisation of courts and providing infrastructural facilities to the judiciary, alleged encroachment by the judiciary in the domain of Executive through Public Interest Litigations, establishment of Supreme Court Benches at three different places in India, provision of High Court benches at least in the State Capitals, due attention to be given by the Central Government for revision of pay and other facilities of subordinate judiciary, corruption in judiciary, providing accommodation and transport facilities to the members of subordinate judiciary, improvement in the condtions of the court rooms including the provision of stationery etc., punishment for false evidence, review of transfer policy of High Court judges, providing expeditious and inexpensive justice, introspection by the judiciary, and restriction on re-employment of judges after retirement, especially after joining politics.
Apart from these issues, some hon. Members spoke of my functioning as Law Minister. They said that I am transferring judges and I am appointing lawyers due to certain reasons. I would like to repeat what I have said in my intervention. After the judgement of the Supreme Court, my power is very limited. If I can say, just like a clerk I am passing on the suggestions given by the collegium of the Supreme Court to the authorities concerned. I would like to put the facts before the august House. Parliament will get some authority only when the Members come forward and make changes in the judicial system. It can be done only through you. Then, that authority can be entrusted to the Minister concerned because the Minister is answerable to Parliament.
Some hon. Members spoke about making some changes in the appointment of judges. They said that importance should be given to Backward Classes, Minorities, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. We are living in a democratic country and we are very much concerned about them. We have to give respect to the aspirations of these sections also. This is what hon. President also said in a Conference which I attended two weeks back. Nearly 25 per cent of our community are Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Minorities.
They are not able to get representation in the judicial system. I am just sharing all that has been expressed. I am conveying these things to the concerned authorities who have to take the decision. That is all I can do. It is left to them to take decision. I cannot discuss further as to how they should function as my hands are tight there. We have committed in our National Agenda to bring a National Judicial Commission. That is a fact and we are giving it an active consideration.
PROF. SAIFUDDIN SOZ : We support that.
DR. M. THAMBI DURAI: If all the Members have the same feeling, I can convey it to the Cabinet and see to it that the matter is expedited.
PROF. SAIFUDDIN SOZ : The whole House is one on that.
DR. M. THAMBI DURAI: Various Leaders have also expressed the same thing when they have personally met me. Most of the Members feel that we have to do something in this regard. We are considering it.
Now, I would like to highlight other steps taken by the Government to find solution or to rectify the defects that are there.
The Government is aware of the difficulties faced by the litigants basically due to delay in the disposal of cases. In view of the recommendations of the Chief Ministers' and Chief Justices' Conference held in 1993, the Government has taken various measures in this regard. These measures include, amendments of Civil Procedure Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, increase in the number of posts of Judges of High Courts, provision of a statutory base to Lok Adalats and vesting it with the powers of a Civil Court after the extension of provisions of Chapter III of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 to all the States and Union territories, appointment of Special Judicial Metropolitan Magistrates and adoption of other alternative and locally appropriate methods of resolution of disputes.
In addition to this, various High Courts have taken a number of steps for expeditious disposal of cases. Groupings and classification of cases involving similar questions of law, setting up of specialised Benches, computerisation of records etc. The High Courts have also issued instructions to their subordinate courts to reduce frequent adjournment of cases. Shri Vora has also raised this point regarding frequent adjournment of cases saying that judges adjourn the case as and when they like and as a result, the litigants suffer a lot. We are requesting them not to adjourn cases frequently. We are also going to put certain stipulations for that.
The pendency of cases in the Supreme Court has come down from 1,04,936 cases as on 31st December, 1991 to 19,561 cases as on 1st May, 1998. Despite the increase in the disposal of cases in the High Courts, the backlog of cases pending in the High Courts has increased due to change in the pattern of litigation. Regarding the High Courts, as on 31.12.93, 26.51 lakh cases were pending and now on 31.12.97 the number has increased to 31.5 lakh cases. If you take the leading courts, in Allahabad High Court, the number of pending cases is 8,65,455, in Madras High Court the number is 3,20,619, in Calcutta High Court 2,82,290 cases are pending and in the Kerala High Court, the number of pending cases is 2,50,261.
SHRI K.S. RAO (MACHILIPATNAM): Why do you not open Benches in the States also which will reduce the pendency of cases?... (Interruptions)
DR. M. THAMBI DURAI: You have given the answer also. Shri Swamy has mentioned about the Jaswant Singh Commission. We have to get a proposal from the State Governments along with the recommendations of the Chief Justices of the High Courts. Then only we can take action.
DR.M. THAMBI DURAI: There is some controversy in that. Members are saying that they want permanent Benches.
The proposal is for Circuit Bench only. The proposal which I received duly recommended by the Chief Justice of Madras High Court is only for Circuit Bench. If the Members are satisfied with that we can proceed further... (Interruptions).
from Tamil Nadu. Why can you not interact with them and see that it is done. It is in your own interest. Are you not interested in providing the Bench in Madurai or somewhere in Chennai?
SHRI M. THAMBI DURAI: I have written letters. As per the reply received by my predecessor, the Chief Justice of Madras High Court felt that the facilities available in Madurai area are not sufficient. It is according to their version. Therefore, they are not interested to move that. Let the State Government give all the facilities which are required by the Chief Justice of Madras, then it can be done... (Interruptions)
matter... (Interruptions). We are very much interested to provide a Bench of the High Court at Madurai in Tamil Nadu. But at the same time, why can he not interact with the State Government... (Interruptions). The Law Minister can go and interact with the people in the State. What is wrong in it?
SHRI M. THAMBI DURAI: I want to interact. But they are putting somewhere ten kilometres away where I cannot interact. That is how they are creating the problems... (Interruptions).
DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY : Now, we know that the Chief Minister... (Interruptions).
High Court Bench at Madurai in Tamil Nadu.
SHRI C. GOPAL (ARAKKONAM): You are not in a position to understand the position... (Interruptions)
SHRI M. THAMBI DURAI: I am still assuring the House as well as the hon. Members including Shri Baalu and Dr. Swamy that we are ready to take action immediately provided that the Chief Justice of Madras High Court writes a letter saying that the facilities provided by State Government are sufficient. We will take action immediately.
this... (Interruptions)
MR. CHAIRMAN : The Minister is replying categorically.
SHRI N.K. PREMCHANDRAN (QUILON): Sir, now we are having discussion about Madurai Bench. Similarly, a demand has come from Kerala. The State capital of Kerala, namely, Trivandrum, is lacking Division Bench with the filing facilities. Will the Government consider the proposal to have a Bench at Trivandrum?
SHRI VIJAYASHANKAR (MYSORE): Sir, I would request the Minister to say something about Karnataka also.
SHRI M. THAMBI DURAI: I would speak about all the States including Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, etc.
SHRI MOTILAL VORA (RAJNANDGAON): Sir, the hon. Law Minister said that Jaswant Singh Commission gave a recommendation for the creation of a High Court at Raipur. But the capital of Madhya Pradesh, namely, Bhopal, is not having a Bench at all. We have requested for creation of a Circuit Bench at Bhopal. Kindly consider that.
SHRI M. THAMBI DURAI: I am for establishing either Circuit Bench or a permanent Bench in all parts of the country. I am not against that.
We are taking all steps in this regard. If a proposal from the State Government along with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of that State is sent to us, we will take all steps. There is already some controversy in some States. For example, in Uttar Pradesh, the previous Government had selected certain places. Then they had local problems. They had suggested Meerut as one of the places but then people of Agra started agitating. There has been some agitation going on here or there. They cannot pass on this kind of a blame on to the Central Government. We are not in a position to sort out the local issues. That must be sorted out by the State Governments. If they send a proposal, definitely we will take all steps to establish a Circuit Bench or a Permanent Bench to serve the people. That is the intention of the Government. We are taking all steps in this regard. In Karnataka also, the same problem is going on where some people have been agitating over the shifting of place. What Dr. Subramanian Swamy said is a correct thing that there may be certain local problems. Let them sort out the problem. I am for establishing not only this kind of a Permanent, Circuit Bench but also for a Bench of the Supreme Court also. I am for that. But the initiative should come from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India. If that comes, I will definitely take a view.
The pendency of cases in Subordinate Courts has decreased from 2.18 crore as on 31.12.1995 to about 2 crore as on 31.12.1997. We are still having the pendency of cases in crores at the level of the Subordinate Courts. We are taking all steps to see how it can be reduced. For that, the Government has already introduced a Bill on Judicial Reforms for the amendment of the Civil Procedure Code which will prove to be a milestone in the field of tackling vexatious and frivolous litigation. The Bill inter alia contains the provision not to allow more than three adjournments to a party in a case. We intend to bring this Bill. The Bill is under active consideration of the Departmentally related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs.
The Law Commission has recommended in its 154th Report for comprehensive amendment of Criminal Procedure Code. The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 1994 was introduced in the Rajya Sabha which contains a number of measures for quick disposal of cases. The 154th Report contains inter alia setting up of a separate and exclusive cadre of investigating agencies, ensuring timely attendance of witnesses. These are some of the measures we are taking.
Apart from that, I want to say something about the Lok Adalats. Most of the Members have asked for providing free legal services to common man. That is the intention of this Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalats have proved an effective mechanism for alternative resolution of disputes through persuasive and conciliatory efforts with the enforcement of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. We have taken so many steps in this regard. Lok Adalats have been provided a statutory base and are now vested with the powers of a civil court.
By providing legal aid to the poor and the needy people, the Act of 1987 is a step forward in the direction to provide inexpensive justice. In 1997-98, 9352 Lok Adalats were held and 9,45,090 cases were disposed of.
As regards, appointment of more judges to the High Court, it has been decided to create 31 new posts of judges in the courts and the next review of the judges' strength is due.
The High Courts have already been provided with various modern office equipments like telex, Fax, electronic typewriters etc. The various High Courts and State Governments have informed that they are providing electronic typewriters, photo-copier machines etc., to Subordinate Courts in a phased manner. For modernising and streamlining the judiciary in the country through computerisation, we have taken up so many projects and we are trying to implement all those things. So far, about 253 District Courts have been provided with computer hardware. This will help quick delivery of justice to the litigants.