M J Antony: Few tears for wasted hours

Bad scheduling of cases leads to repeated hearings, wasting public time and resources

The appalling loss of time and energy in the well of last Parliament had prompted several political pundits to make rough estimates of damage in terms of money. They hover around Rs 2.5 lakh per minute.

A similar guesstimate is not available for the Supreme Court. It has not published its annual report for years. The Delhi High Court reckoned its cost per minute at Rs 15,000 in its annual report last year, up from Rs 6,327 in 2009. If the official estimate of a high court is that much, the cost per minute of running the mother of all courts must be comparable to that spent on Parliament.

The judiciary is a conservative institution and there is no cost analysis or study on the case flow or other modern management practices. If there is any, it is a closely-guarded secret. The last available annual report of 2009 warns audaciously that the contents cannot be reproduced or stored in any form. The court is not an icon of transparency, though it sermonises on it in other contexts. It had resisted the disclosure of assets of judges till it was driven to a forensic dead end.

Absence of efficient case management results in waste of time, which was evident in the last few months. One case in point was the public interest petition moved by CPI (M) leader Gurudas Dasgupta against Reliance Industries. He had alleged predatory gas pricing and government collusion. The case was heard from March 10 and went on till the end of April. The hearing was marked for its tech-savvy novelties - huge 3-D models of the KG basin placed in front of the three judges and four widescreen monitors operated by lawyers and geeks below. There were several volumes of "convenient compilations" (the latest legalese for summaries) of the case.

After more than a month of arguments, the case was suddenly off the court's radar. It is learnt that the bench will not hear the matter any longer. The presiding judge is retiring next month and he would not be able to conclude the hearing or deliver judgment. The result is that after the vacation, a new bench has to be constituted by the Chief Justice, who is himself retiring very soon. The hearing has to re-start before a new set of judges, and like last time, begin by explaining a 10-page glossary of geological terms.

A similar story can be told of the celebrated Aadhaar case. A former judge of the Karnataka High Court filed a public interest case against the unique identity project, alleging violation of privacy and other constitutional guarantees. The hearing started early February, but after a few days, it disappeared from the list of the court, for no apparent reason.

Another case that started with fanfare and vanished without a trace was the probe into the public distribution system (People's Union for Civil Liberties case). It was in this case that the government famously declared that people in urban areas can live on Rs 32 a day and a villager needs only Rs 26. The judges who pursued the case have either retired or got coveted posts, but nothing has been heard about the case since 2011.

These are some cases that vanished midway leaving not even pings like those left by Flight MH370. It is not due to the onset of the silly season when courts slip into a long summer siesta. Judicial amnesia or fatigue has consigned several constitutional questions to the stack room in the basement long ago. There are decade-old issues referred to larger benches and forgotten. Benches consisting of more than seven judges have to deal with the interpretation of "industry" in the Industrial Disputes Act, necessitated by ambiguities in an earlier constitution bench decision ('Bangalore Water Supply case').

Then there are intricate questions on the right to property, which touch upon multiple amendments to the Constitution apart from re-consideration of earlier constitution bench judgments. At least 11 judges have to be assembled to hear the matter ('Property Owners Association' case).

These are only a few instances of mysterious sightings and disappearances of cases of public importance, in full view of the nation. It would be distressing to probe matters involving individual men and women and their agony.

The judiciary has indeed several grievances against the government, like apathetic budgeting and denial of basic infrastructure. But some initiative from within can make substantial changes to its current plight. Cases should be prioritised and heard in a streamlined manner. Sudden full stops as in the above cases should be avoided, and delivery of judgments should not wait for the last working day of the judge. Recently, a research officer was appointed in the registry. In fact, there should be a full intensive care unit that must study the ills of the court in a transparent manner. If that is not possible, the work should be assigned to a private consultancy.