Inaugural Address by Justice E.S Venkataramiah

When I joined the Bar, I started as a pleader in a munsiff's court. Within a few hours after my first appearance in a munsiff's court, I felt that I was sitting in a court presided over by a judge who was an embodiment of justice. That judge ultimately retired as a District Judge. He was so good, courteous, efficient, fair and impartial that he left a lasting impression on my mind and just before I took my oath of office in the Supreme Court, I remembered him. I wish we had such persons in large numbers in the judiciary. I come from a village. I did not know anybody in the Bangalore Bar before I went there. Soon all members of the Bar took interest in me as they were doing in the case of all others. They were kind, sympathetic, helpful and often acted as teachers. They put strength into my faltering steps and helped me to grow in the Bar. Even lawyers who opposed me pointed out the mistakes I had committed and that helped me to avoid such mistakes as far as possible. Like me, many other young lawyers have received encouragement at the hands of the senior members. Seniors in the Bar should know that a good word about a junior when he has conducted a case well will be a great source of encouragement to him. In my senior's office where I spent about seventeen months, I was taught the technicalities of the work in courts by the clerk in his office. The officers of the court were all helpful. It is in this congenial atmosphere I grew. I am grateful to all of them who helped me during my early stages in the Bar, When some young lawyers meet me now and tell me about their problems, I begin to think why things have deteriorated now. Is it because there is lot of money in the profession which is shared only by a few? Is it because there is so much of competition in the Bar that survival of the younger members who are not well placed in life has become difficult? Do they feel that they are discriminated against by the members of the judiciary? Have the members of the court staff become discourteous or have they ceased to feel that they are members of a great institution where justice is dispensed? Have the rules of procedure outlived their utility? What are the reasons for the increasing cost, delay and uncertainty involved in the administration of justice? These matters worry me more than the abstract theories of law. I am concerned more about these mundane matters.

First let me take up the case of our brethren in the Bar. If the conditions under which they work are improved, everything else in the Judicial Department can be set right. Leaving aside a few lucky persons who make large sums of money whether they deserve it or not, there is a large section of the Bar which is passing through hard days. Their difficulties are many. They have no guaranteed income. They have no retirement benefits. If any of them prematurely dies his family would be thrown into unbearable misery. The lawyers have no leave facilities. Many lawyers, if they take leave, have to starve. 'They have no good libraries. They have no staff and office equipment. Many have no houses. But still they have to maintain a posture of dignity and affluence in order to claim a high social status. What is the solution for these problems? Friends, please remember that the days of an individual lawyer carrying on the profession alone are over. Laws have multiplied. Life has become complex. The professional activities cannot be confined to a Taluka. No single lawyer can claim to be proficient in all branches of law. If you are not able to cater to the needs of the different sections of the community requiring your assistance, you would be found to be wanting in competence which is required of a lawyer. The number of courts has increased. You cannot be in all courts simultaneously when your cases are called on for hearing. If you cannot make arrangement for the hearing of your cases in all courts, you are sure to be in trouble. You have no time to meet a new client, attend to an old client, ascertain what a witness has to say and read the records to get ready for a trial or an argument. You cannot keep your office closed either when you are ill or when you have to attend to any of your private matters. The only solution for all these problems is to form partnership firms of lawyers with a minimum of five partners. In Western countries there are firms having more than 100 lawyers as partners and there are lawyers' firms which are more than 100 years old. If all lawyers decide upon entering into partnerships, the number of lawyers' offices will be reduced from today's estimated 1, 50,000 to 30,000. If a firm of lawyers is there, each partner can specialise in a particular branch of law. Some may be trial lawyers and some may be working in appellate courts. Some may specialise in civil cases, some in criminal cases and some in taxation cases. If one of them is on leave another will run the office. If one of them dies prematurely, his family can be maintained by the firm. The firm may contribute towards provident fund, gratuity and such other retirement benefits of a partner who wishes to retire. If some are working in courts, others may be in the office attending to the clients who visit the office, to the preparation of pleadings and to other administrative matters. You can have one good library for the benefit of all. Instead of having five sets of the same books in five different offices; you will be able to have five times the number of books on different topics in one office. Instead of each of you having one clerk who is not fully employed or who may have to be moving from place to place, you may have five clerks whose services can be better organised. The work hi the office can be distributed according to the capacity, inclination or interest of individual partners. The advantages are many. Please take it from me that 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 8 here and not 5. Please do not make it a Brahmin firm, an Agarwal firm, or a Jain firm or a Muslim firm. If lawyers of different communities become partners of a firm there will be no room for many of the uncharitable suggestions which are now being made here and there.

We must remember that the Bar works in public. Reputations are built or sullied by the conduct of the members of the Bar themselves. They should, therefore, be vigilant about the conduct of every member of the Bar and more particularly about their own conduct. The career in the Bar cannot be built in one day nor even by one case. It is the result of gradual accumulation of good deeds or sins. It is true that there may be some stray occasions when one is driven to deviate from the course of good conduct owing to circumstances beyond one's control but soon one should make an attempt to revert to the correct path. Lawyers should realise that there is always another point of view regarding any matter. The sooner it is realised it is good for them and to everybody. A lawyer should put forward the case of his client strenously and with all vigour based on facts and law. But this is possible only up to a point because the other lawyer also has his own point of view. The matter should thereafter be left to the judge. A lawyer who thinks that his client is always in the right and all his clients are truthful is not a wise person. A lawyer should be prepared to lose some cases too. He cannot always win his cases. There would be no need for a judge at all if a lawyer has to succeed in all cases for whoever engages such a lawyer would always win. When once members of the Bar realise that some cases are bound to be lost, their entire approach towards other members of the Bar and the judges would be different. That will facilitate the growth of a healthy atmosphere in the Bar Room, in the Court Room and in the eyes of the community. Many unjustifiable allegations and counter-allegations which are being made would cease. Unfortunately these are on the increase. It is painful to hear that in some places engagements are accepted on the basis of the degree of success in the ease. They are called 'guarantee briefs'. If a lawyer accepts a brief in which a bail petition is to be moved on the basis that he should be paid Rs. 5,000/- if he succeeds in obtaining an order of bail and nothing at all if he does not succeed, he is likely to feel when he loses the case that the judge has deprived him of Rs. 5,000/-. Naturally this leads to strained feelings between the court and the members of the Bar. I am only giving, this illustration to show how on account of deviation from the path of rectitude, the whole atmosphere gets vitiated.

About judges, I have not much to add to what I have said at the end of my judgment in the Judge's case. In one sentence if I may put what I have said there is that every judge, be he a judicial officer in a small town or a judge in the highest court should be independent of himself. He should be free from all prejudices, likes and dislikes. I am aware of the various constraints and difficulties under which judges have to work particularly in small towns. But they should develop the strength to withstand the extraneous pulls and pressures which hinder the administration of even-handed justice. Their sole object should be to deal with matters which come before them conscientiously to the best of their ability. A judge who has not committed errors is yet to be born. A judge is a human being and he is bound to err but let him not err deliberately on considerations alien to the case.

Now about the conditions of service of the members of the Subordinate Judiciary. I have always felt that the implementation of the scheme of All-India Judicial Service is absolutely necessary if we should retrieve our lost ground. I have suggested in my evidence before the Jaswant Singh Commission certain changes in the pattern of subordinate judiciary. Briefly stated they are as follows : I told the Commission that "the pressure for having Benches of High Courts for people in various parts of States nearer home is increasing principally on account of the following four factors :

1. The High Court exercising the second appellate jurisdiction.
2. The High Court exercising first I appellate jurisdiction on matters, the pecuniary value of which when considered in the light of the present day value of money is very low.
3. The High Court exercising revisional powers against all orders of civil courts against which no appeal lies.
4. The increasing necessity felt by the people to approach the High Court for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

If the Cadres in the subordinate judiciary are strengthened and their jurisdiction and powers are enhanced the necessity for the people to approach the High Court on many matters on which they have now to approach the High Court would be reduced.

In order to strengthen the subordinate judiciary the first thing that should be done is to enact an All-India Civil Courts Act. There should be only three cadres in the subordinate judiciary:

Munsiffs should be permitted to try all suits whose pecuniary value does not exceed Rs. 25,000/-. The Sub-Judges shall have jurisdiction to try all suits whose pecuniary value exceeds Rs. 25,000/-without any limit.

There shall be only one appeal against decrees passed by the civil courts. There shall be no second appeal against any decree.

Appeals against decrees passed by the Munsiff shall lie to the Sub-Judge. Appeals from the decrees passed by the Sub-Judge in suits whose pecuniary value does not exceed Rs. 50,000/- shall lie to the District Judge. Appeals against other decrees passed by the Sub-Judge shall lie to the High Court.

The District Judge shall exercise revisional jurisdiction against an order of Munsiff against which no appeal lies.

The High Court may exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution against appellate decrees passed by the Sub-Judges and District Judges and revisional jurisdiction over orders of Sub-Judges and District Judges against which no appeal lies.

Officers of the cadre of Sub-Judges may act as Additional Sessions Judges with power to try all sessions cases.

Power should be conferred upon the District Judges to exercise the powers exercisable by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in all matters arising under State laws (except specific taxation laws) where the constitutionality of any statutory provision is not questioned. This will cover a sizable part of the present writ petitions pending in High Courts. The orders of District Judges are of course subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, A provision corresponding to Article 139-A of the Constitution may be made empowering the High Court to withdraw any specific writ petition from the file of a District Judge and to decide it itself. 50% of the District Judges should be persons belonging to a place outside the State.

The Union and the States should establish Tribunals to decide cases relating to the services of any Government or of any local authority and Parliament should be requested to make a law excluding the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of these matters. Such Tribunals can sit in different places in a State and dispose of cases. On the constitution of such Tribunals, there would be no question of the High Courts deciding such cases.

At this stage I have to state a few words about the mounting arrears. If trial lawyers make up their mind, there would be no arrears at all either in the trial courts or in the higher courts. Friends, it is possible to predict the result of cases filed in court at least in 80% of them. It is only in the balance of 20% that it may be difficult to do so. Of course, there may be some surprises here and there either on account of the capacity of counsel to persuade the judge or on account of the stupidity of the judge himself. Even then why do we drive all the parties to carry on litigation for years and from court to court? This is done because of the advantage a litigant, who has no case, may derive at least by dragging on the case for years. Is it just to do so? Why should we not arrange for the settlement of such disputes at an early stage? If lawyers of both sides consider the proposal of settlement sympathetically at least 50% cases which are now actually being fought in courts may be settled and so much of judicial time will be saved for other cases which have got to be tried and decided. Lawyers' time also will be saved and they may utilise it to study other cases. One other request I wish to make is that lawyers should see that a case progresses at least by an inch on every date of hearing. You should know that your time is valuable. Why should you waste your time on cases unnecessarily? The judges and. lawyers should see that at the end of the year the number of cases pending in any court is less than the number pending at the commencement of the year. If all Rajasthan lawyers make up their mind they can celebrate this year as arrears clearance year and help the people to go out of courts as early as possible.

One other suggestion that may be considered by you is about the number of sitting days of the trial courts. In all the States the trial court judges sit in court on all the six working days in a week. I personally feel that if the trial judge is asked to sit in court only on five days in a week i. e. from Monday to Friday and is permitted to sit in his chamber on Saturday to attend to other judicial work, it would lead to greater efficiency. On Saturday he can dictate his orders and judgments, inspect the office, check the registers maintained by court, attend to the issue of court cheques, verify the work of process staff etc. This would also give some breathing time to the office staff to attend to all the remaining work of the week. Lawyers also will have one extra day to sit in their offices and to prepare the pleadings, to study cases, to meet the parties, to discuss proposals for settlement of disputes etc. Many cases have to be adjourned in court on account of lawyers not finding time to do their homework and such adjournments can be avoided by this arrangement. The trial judges also would have Sunday for themselves to read or to attend to their personal matters. This arrangement is sure to add to the efficiency and it facilitates quicker disposal of work in courts. I request you to examine this proposal and make appropriate recommendation to your High Court for its consideration.

I want one other amendment to be made in the Criminal Procedure Code. I am reminded of how Lord Atkin when he was the Judge in the Court of Appeal and later on of the House of Lords used to preside over the Magistrate's court at Aberdovey in Wales, when he used to spend his long vacation there. Why not extend that privilege to the Supreme Court Judges and the High Court Judges too to sit in the Magistrate's Court for some time at least? It would give us great pleasure to participate in judicial proceedings there.

Author Name: Hon'ble Mr. Justice E. S. Venkataramiah