Delay-'Courts Are Doctors Of Bleeding Rights': Madras High Court Cautions Bar & Litigants To Honor Court Appointments

A single bench of Justice N. Seshasayee observed that every time the Bar or the litigants are given a posting for their hearings, the Court is giving them appointments. They should ensure that these appointments are not wasted.

The remarks were made while hearing a civil revision petition filed by one Fathima, against the Trial Court's order dismissing her interim application seeking an opportunity to cross-examine a Defence witness.

The High Court observed that the impugned decision was passed by the Trail Court in the backdrop of immense "agony", put upon it by the Petitioner, who failed to abide by the dates set by the Court on multiple occasions, repeatedly sought adjournments or appeared unprepared for hearings.

Deprecating such practices, the High Court explained that the Courts exist to provide justice to the aggrieved. The people come to the Courts themselves. They are not invited by the Courts. But, once the people approach the Courts for a legal remedy, it becomes their duty to be disciplined and follow a reasonable timetable. The Court stated, "It is time they realised that Courts are doctors of injured rights, and the appointments they grant them are honoured and made use of."

Justice Seshasayee asked, "When the litigants do not miss, say a train or a plane in time, miss a marriage or other social events in time, miss a cinema or a live show in time, miss an examination or an interview in time - and the list is endless, what makes them believe that their appointments with the courts alone should figure the least in their list of priorities?"

The Court expressed that the slow disposal of cases is always chalked up to judicial delay, but people never take into account the factors such as the litigants not abiding by Court dates, as one of the problems that contribute to the huge pile of cases that are still pending before the Court in this country.

"Is it a problem of inadequate professionalism of the Bar, or plain irresponsibility of the litigants, or unmindful generosity of the Courts that they themselves choose not to the take the appointments that they have given the litigants seriously? The pathology of delay in disposal of cases lie somewhere in this malady. The courts may not be solely responsible for this, but it cannot seek an exemption either. However, it is passed for, and derided as judicial delay," asked the Court.

It added,

"The same stakeholders who do not spare an opportunity to abuse and/or waste their appointments with the courts, and at times even with a design, blame them. With pain it has to be stated that, for the sin of a section of the Bar and the litigants, the Courts are forced to carry the cross all alone, struggling to explain the delay for the disposal of cases to the citizens of this country all the time."

The bench stated that it understands the unforeseen circumstances that might affect human affairs, but this benefit of a doubt cannot be extended beyond a limit. Extreme delays caused by litigants who don't abide by these Court appointments will, as the bench states, defeat the very purpose and objectives of the Court and impinge upon the promise and duties that they have towards the citizens of this country. The Court further, in this context, added, "We, the People, may not betray the trust the Constitution has reposed on us, and shame it."

The Court discussed the challenges faced by the District Judiciary in handing procedural discretion. The Court said, "The Procedural law is a rule book of fairness, and the mindless abuse of procedural discretion, no matter who is responsible for it, would necessarily breed processual inequality among litigants." It observed that showing an extreme amount of solicitousness to one of the litigants might be procedurally fair to that litigant, but will be unfair to the other litigant. The Court asserted, "Right to justice is a composite concept: it includes both right to substantial justice as well as procedural justice."

The Court here stated that the 'Watch, Weigh, Value' approach might be the most reasonable one for the District Courts to balance procedural justice in individual cases. Everyone has a right to justice and it should not be overlooked by grouping everyone in a common denominator. "It is hence, imperative that the Courts should watch, weigh and value each of them for accommodating their request for exercising procedural discretion," advised the Court.

The bench reiterated with firmness that the appointment given by the Court is as important as an appointment given by a doctor. It should be valued and honoured by the Bar and the litigants.

Coming to the matter at hand, the Bench held that the Trial Court was clear in its reasoning and judgement. It was stated that the Trial Judge had dealt with a litigant (the petitioner) who had made it a habit to miss and abuse the appointments given to her by the Trial Court. The bench stated that the judicial system has evolved a Doctrine by which the litigant should not suffer due to the faults of her Counsel. But, Justice N. Seshasayee rhetorically remarked, "What is that point where a just compassion turns into an undeserving charity? And, is it not true that a section of the bar that has once abused the procedural opportunity is helped with unending opportunities to escape from their inadequate responsibility?"

The High Court in this case stated, "The attitude of the revision petitioner is plainly and painfully nonsensical, and somewhere this game should end. And it has ended now." With this statement, they dismissed the revision petition.

Case Title: Fatima v. Rahamutullah & Ors.

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order