The Supreme Court of India dismissed a plea seeking fixed time limits for case disposal, stating, “We are not the American Supreme Court.” Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud emphasized that while time-bound case disposal is desirable, it is unachievable due to infrastructure limitations and the massive case volume handled by Indian courts.
New Delhi: Today, on October 18th, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a plea seeking directions for the disposal of cases within a fixed time frame across all courts in the country. The plea had asked for cases, including those in the Supreme Court, to be resolved within 12 to 36 months.
“We are not the American Supreme Court,” remarked the bench, led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud, and comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, as they responded to the petitioner’s suggestion that other countries had similar time frames for case disposal.
Time Frame for Case Disposal: “Very Desirable” but “Unachievable”
During the proceedings, the petitioner argued that setting time limits for resolving cases, as done in some western countries, would improve the efficiency of India’s judicial system. However, the court was quick to counter this assertion.
“You want hearings in all cases to be disposed of within 12 months in the Supreme Court?”
the bench questioned. The CJI acknowledged that while the idea of time-bound case disposal is “very desirable”, it remains “unachievable” under the current circumstances. He explained that for such an initiative to be successful, several factors, including enhanced infrastructure and a significant increase in the number of judges, would be necessary.
Comparing Judicial Systems: India vs. the West
The court then challenged the petitioner’s comparison of India’s judicial system with that of the United States and other countries. The bench pointed out the staggering number of cases handled by the Indian judiciary compared to its western counterparts.
The CJI remarked that the Supreme Court of India handles more cases in a single day than many western supreme courts deal with in an entire year. This, he emphasized, is a crucial distinction between the judicial processes in India and those in other countries like the United States.
Access to Justice: The Court’s Stand
While the petitioner emphasized that his plea was not about restricting people from approaching the courts, the bench maintained that the Indian judicial system is designed to provide access to justice for all. The CJI highlighted that placing strict time limits on case disposal could risk denying many people their right to a fair trial, as the courts must ensure that every case is heard with due diligence.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s dismissal of the plea reinforces the complexity and scale of India’s judicial system. While time-bound disposal of cases is an aspirational goal, the court made it clear that current limitations, including infrastructure and workload, make such a target unrealistic at this time.
This ruling underscores the differences between India’s judiciary and those of other countries and highlights the importance of access to justice over arbitrary time constraints. The court’s decision reflects its commitment to ensuring fairness and thoroughness in the face of an overwhelming volume of cases.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES