Different types of punishment are parceled out in accordance with the codified laws and the crime committed by the assailant. There are various judicial bodies in India that make up the judiciary. According to the Indian Constitution, each of these courts has its own jurisdiction and must abide by the law. Evaluating any legislative or executive action to ensure that they do not go beyond the restrictions imposed by the Constitution, despite the fact that they are otherwise free to take such action. The legislative and executive branches of government in India have no sway over the judiciary.
Since the dawn of the 20th century, numerous committees have been established to address the inefficiency of the Indian justice system. Under Justice Rankin of the Calcutta High Court, a committee was established in 1924 to closely inspect the delays in the resolution of civil appeals and cases. In 1929, a different committee was established with S.R. Das as its chairman, and it provided a framework for how to truncate the backlog in the nation's courts. However, the recommendations made by all of these committees proved to be nugatory because the system neither discussed nor embraced them. Myriad number of unresolved cases have altered the criminal justice system, which is also biased against the underprivileged or weaker segments of society. Even though justice is delivered, the lengthy process underlines the shortcomings of the adjudicating authority. Every Indian citizen is given certain fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution, the transgression of which may result in legal repercussions. However, thousands of rape cases go unfathomed because people assume it will take a court 8 to 10 years to rule on them. The Indian judicial system continues to be in this state. For instance, in the Nirbhaya Rape Case, the court took eight years out of the victim's mother's life to discern whether or not the six appellants were guilty of rape even after the entire nation knew they must be punished. It was taken into account in the Mohammad Harris Nalapad Case in Bengaluru that charge sheets are never filed within the stipulated 60-day window. Moreover, evidence has frequently been falsified as a result of political pressure or, occasionally, callousness.
In Hussain v. Union of India, the appellants argued that because of the protracted acclimation period, they should have been granted bail because a speedy trial is a fundamental right. By ordering that the ongoing trial and ongoing appeal may both be resolved within six months, the appeals were repudiated. The Supreme Court ruled that the High Courts could instruct inferior courts to settle bail requests ordinarily within a week. When an accused person is in custody, a magistrate trial must be finished in six months, and a session trial must be finished in two years. By the end of the year, endeavors were to be made to dispose of all cases that are five years old.
In its landmark decision in Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary State of Bihar, the Indian Supreme Court reiterated the right to a speedy trial as a component of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and liberty. The case also acknowledged that if a person's liberty is taken from him in a way that is not reasonable, fair, and just, that taking would be a violation of that person's fundamental right under Article 21, and he would be entitled to use that right to get his freedom back. In Bihar, undertrial inmates were languishing in jail for years in this particular case.
Technology is not being employed in the judiciary. There is a shitload of paperwork involved. Over 60,000 cases are brought before the Indian Supreme Court each year. Each document must be filed in a specific format for each case. Each document, for instance, is limited to being typed in a 13–14 font size. They must also be double-spaced with a 3 cm margin. The restriction that content can only be printed on one side of the paper seems to be the most obvious one. Each year, these courts hear 12.5 million cases. This adds upto 10 billion sheets (approx. 8 files per case, each file containing about 100 pages). That much paper is utilized by our legal system annually.
Regarding the Collegium system and the new system, the NJAC, that the government intends to adopt for the appointment of judges, there have been extensive debates reeling across the country. Well, whether it's the collegium system or the NJAC, none appear to be transparent enough to give the general public a clear and understandable picture of how judges are chosen. Let’s assume that the government and the supreme court are in a tete-a- tete discussion about this issue, but the question of whether the stated amendment or even the current proposal will bring transparency to the process of choosing judges and make the rules clear to the general public remains unanswered.
The victim has to suffer when they are not financially secure because they're unable to afford for well-known attorneys who can win the case in a short amount of time. Meanwhile, opulent people can easily afford pricey attorneys and influence the course of justice to their advantage. For many states in India's north-east and south, having only one Supreme Court and no other branch is a dilemma. SC appeals become considerably frenetic.
The judiciary has occasionally been found to be corrupt, just like the legislative and executive pillars of government. No accountability framework has been established. Even the media struggles to paint an accurate and comprehensive picture of the corruption situation in the context of judicial proceedings. Ostensibly, the media is more interested in exposing corruption in other industries, particularly the executive. A courtroom clerk accepting a bribe and changing the trial date remains obfuscated, but a minister, of an opposition party, accepting a bribe or distributing cash during elections may make headlines.
The de rigueur changes cannot be implemented overnight, but if we work toward them, they will undeniably eventuate. Despite multiple flaws and stalemates, changes must be made in order to strengthen India's justice system. There are multifarious ways to bring about this change. Both the Supreme Court and the High Court should have more judges on staff. Even though our judges are highly qualified, they have not been able to fairly administer the law. There is a gap between the different facets of society because of red tape or excessive delays brought on by paperwork. This needs to be replaced with the technological infrastructure that will enable swift case resolution. Adjudicating authority needs to take a significant big leap, and advocates who solicit bottlenecks too frequently ought to be severely admonished. The alternative dispute resolution processes, such as conciliation, arbitration, and mediation, should be made known to the public.