Lawyers Should Not Rush To High Court For Every Small Thing, Digitization Of Trial Court Record A Must: Delhi High Court Judges

Giving a “judicial perspective” on the issue of long pendency of cases, Justice Jasmeet Singh and Justice Amit Sharma of Delhi High Court on Friday suggested ways to reduce the backlog.

The judges were speaking at the “Coffee Conversation” organized by Delhi High Court Women Lawyers Forum. The topic of discussion of the event was "Role Of Bar In Reducing Arrear - Judicial Perspective.”

Addressing a gathering of senior and young lawyers of the High Court, Justice Singh began his address by highlighting the need of modernization to deal with arrears of cases.

He said that the trial court record (TCR), which is essential for High Court in criminal revision cases or appeals, should be in a digital form and must be made available with courts as well as lawyers on the first day of hearing.

“I've been sitting in criminal roster. We have criminal revision where trial court record is a must. Imagine you have TCR the day case is listed, you'll save so many dates. There is a positive movement that TCR should be in a digital form. And according to me, whatever is the trial court record, must be available with courts and counsels the day case is listed,” the judge said.

Justice Singh further suggested that the lawyers “must be genuine with their clients” and must tell them the “realistic chance of success of the case”.

“Lawyers must be genuine with their clients. There should be something about financial stability of atleast young lawyers so that client has a fair idea about what his case is. If lawyer is financially secure, then lawyer must tell his client the realistic chance of success in the case ... At least somewhere down the line you must tell, this is it, this is the maximum you can get, don't push it further,” he said.

He further said that in the pleadings, lawyers should not castigate the judge and rather the judgment must be castigated. He said that words like “the judgment has failed…” should be used, rather than “the judge has failed to appreciate etc.”

“These are my suggestions. Of course alternate dispute resolution (ADR) everybody must encourage. We all hope it comes down because the figures are enormous,” Justice Singh said.

When asked about his opinion on “three adjournment rule”, Justice Singh said: “Three adjournment rule is the way forward but it can't be given in all cases. If you become too complacent about it, then you see the figures are in front of you. Somewhere down the line, balance has to be struck.”

The judge also said that in the nine months of being on the criminal roster, he did not have a chance to hear an appeal in one go.

“I have been in the criminal roster for 9 months now. I have not had a time to hear a single appeal in one go ... because of my pace or whatever, I am not able to finish my roster, my list,” Justice Singh said,

On the other hand, Justice Sharma suggested lawyers to exhaust the remedies in trial court and not rush to the High Court directly.

“When I started my practice in Patiala House Court on the criminal side….I don't recall lawyers rushing to High Court for bail. That's how I've been trained.  For every small thing you don't rush to high court. There are trial courts, responsible officers there. There is a sessions judge there, equally competent,” he said.

Justice Sharma also said that lawyers have a duty to explain to their clients that coming to High Court specially, when facts are not in their favour, may not be a suitable option.

Furthermore, he said that mediation should be explored in matrimonial matters and that it is also possible in economic offence cases where private parties are involved.

Details of Members of Organizing Committee

Moderators: Advocates Sugandha Agarwal and Bandana Kaur Grover 

Coordinator and Vote of Thanks: Advocates Chhavi and Hardeep Kaur

Other Coordinators: Advocates Sneh Somani, Akshay. R and Advocate Mamta.