The Bombay high court’s acquittal of Salman Khan raises disturbing questions about the court’s approach to prioritising cases, according to Daksh, a Bengaluru-based NGO, which researches political and administrative processes in order to create and evolve methods of accountability and transparency in governance.
Saying that the high court took just over seven months to decide this appeal, Harish Narasappa pointed out in a blog post that the DAKSH database has details of 52,921 criminal appeals pending in 18 High Courts across the country.
On average, he pointed out, the pendency is five years and nine months. Appeals in the Bombay high court actually take longer, he says. Currently, the Daksh database has details for 657 criminal appeals pending in the Bombay high court.
The average pendency, according to Daksh, is just over 13 years. Unlike Salman Khan who was already on bail pending his appeal, many others convicted by the lower courts, do not get bail and spend time in jail while their appeals are decided by the high courts.
The research on Daksh pendency in high courts was first published in Mint and Legally India earlier this year.
According to Narasappa, prioritisation of certain cases over others, and the reasons for such favoured treatment, challenge the notion of equality. The judiciary, he says, should follow the ‘first in, first out’ principle in disposal of cases, except where there is a demonstrated urgency. And the first in, first out principle should apply among the cases which are deemed urgent as well, he says. According to him, it is the subject matter of a case, and not the identity of the individuals involved in the cases, which should determine the urgency involved and the need for priority.
The Salman Khan appeal and the J Jayalalithaa appeal (decided by the high court of Karnataka in super quick time pursuant to a direction of the Supreme Court) were seriously troubling exceptions to the travails of the ‘other people’ whose appeals go on for years, he regretted.
In another blog written on Daksh’s website, Ramya Tirumalai, an associate at Daksh, pointed out that when Salman Khan filed his criminal appeal against his conviction in the 2002 hit-and-run case, on 6 May 2015, his was the 572nd criminal appeal filed in the Bombay high court in 2015. According to her, from the day of institution to the date of disposal, Khan’s case spent 220 days in court. This is 21 times faster than the disposal rate for other criminal appeals in the same court, she has pointed out.
Relying on the case status page of the Bombay high court’s website, she says that Khan had to sit through 47 hearings in 220 days.
That translates to roughly 4-5 days between hearings. As per the DAKSH data, this number would be very different for a non-celebrity appellant:
According to our data, on average, a case in the Bombay High Court would have to wait 51 days between hearings. In number speak this means that to go through the same number of hearings that Salman’s case did in 7 months, another criminal appeal would take more than 6 and a half years!
That is roughly 11 times slower than Khan's 7-month appeal.
Tirumalai pointed out that according to DAKSH data, on average, a case in the Bombay high court would have to wait 51 days between hearings. In number-speak, this means that to go through the same number of hearings that Salman’s case did in seven months, another criminal appeal would take more than six and a half years, she explains. “Apart from the query as to why a case needs to go through 47 hearings, there is the more obvious question – Doesn’t everyone have the same need for speed(y) trial?, she asked.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
It means that if there's a celebrity involved, the process moves quickly. If you're poor or unknown, you get to wait 6 years for your appeal (often in jail, rather than out on bail).
rudrajyotinathray.wordpress.com/2015/12/10/10-12-2015-bom-hc-acquits-salman/
High Court for almost 6 months ,since the appeal was admitted.The High Court has finally on the basis of records and arguments of Advocates of parties before it ,has decided to allow the appeal.Whether decesion is correct or not is for the Supreme Court to decide ,in case State Government decides to file SLP in Supreme Court.However what is a matter of concern is that with huge pendency of cases in all High Courts and in Bombay High Court,whether it is correct for the High Court to hear one case on 49 days for coming to a decesion.Is it possible for the High Court to bring down pendency of cases if hearing of one case is given so many days.This way High Court will hardly be able to decide few appeals / cases against filing of more than 1000 appeals in a year approximately. There are more serious matters in High Court considering the offences involved ,then in those cases the High Court will require even more days than in this case to come to a conclusion. It is therefore required that a time frame be fixed for hearing of a case at the start of hearing and parties be asked to give their written submissions in advance and then should be permitted to address the court on the basis of written submissions and hearing of a matter should be concluded in at the most in a week.Another thing to save the time of Court is to reserve the judgement and pronounce it after few days instead of dictating the order in court for 3-4 days as has been done in the present case ,as if judgement was reserved ,the time spent in dictation in the court could be spent for other cases.Considering the high fees of Advocates also ,the Court should see that ,everybody in India is not Like the Appellant in the present case ,who can spend money for so many days of hearing and thus that should be another consideration for the Court to hear the case in few days in the Court and spare the litigants of money which they may not be able to spend on their lawyer and thus poor litigants will not be in a position to appeal in High Court or to seek legal remedies of their problems.Though every Court or Honable Judge has its own way to deal with the matters coming before him for hearing and thus above mentioned is only a suggession for saving the time of the court ,which can be utilised for other matters and also for consideration of costs involved in for a litigant ,as already stated everybody can not afford the high cost of appearance of the Advocates fo
r so many days appearance in the Court.
It's really a matter of will, and moolah!
It also means that there really is no systemic problem.
For Salman's case to happen 11 times as fast, 10 other cases have to be happening 11 times more slowly...
www.legallyindia.com/bar-bench-litigation/the-bombay-high-court-s-305-page-salman-khan-judgment-is-out-read-judgment
- I had informed CJI in 2014 - Access my Wordpress blog - Google - "Chhugani A R Joshi Wordpress".
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first