The Supreme Court has held that the federal government must take steps to curb the trend of false and frivolous litigation, stressing the need for measures to deter individuals engaging in such acts from escaping scot-free.
Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail authored an eight-page judgment on an appeal challenging the acquittal of an accused in a criminal case.
The court pointed towards the necessity for potential amendments to existing laws or new legislation to rectify the situation. Until such policies or enactments are established, the court urged judges to utilise their existing powers to do complete justice, and discourage frivolous and malicious litigation.
A three-judge bench, led by Justice Mandokhail, deliberated on the case and emphasised that filling judicial vacancies, increasing the number of judges when necessary, upgrading investigation mechanisms, and providing essential facilities are crucial steps to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice.
The judgement said that to address the deficiencies in prosecution’s cases, and to avoid unreasonable delays in the timely conclusion of criminal trials and appeals, it is an obligation of the State under Article 37(d) of the Constitution to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice.
In this regard, judicial officer vacancies nationwide must be promptly filled based on merit. Consideration should be given to increasing the number of judges where necessary. There is a need for the upgrading of the investigation mechanism, introducing modern techniques, equipment, devices, and tools.
The ruling further suggested regular and productive training courses for investigating officials should be conducted.
It said it is crucial to ensure the independence of the judiciary and investigating agencies, provide basic facilities, create a friendly and workable atmosphere for the courts and investigating agencies, and guarantee the safety and protection of judicial officers, investigating officials, and witnesses.
The top court said that there is no doubt that the prosecuting agencies and the courts are over-burdened because of increase in the number of cases as a result of population explosion and lack of basic facilities, necessary for early dispensation of justice.
However, it added, still they are under constitutional and legal obligations to conduct and conclude fair investigation and fair trial within a stipulated period to the possible extent, or in a reasonable period where there is no time limit provided by law for doing so.
Within the prevailing system, it is difficult to achieve the desired results, but some improvements could be made into the system by proper management in order to streamline the investigation and judicial proceedings.
“Such goal cannot be achieved without the cooperation of investigating agencies, complainants, lawyers, prosecutors and all relevant persons/authorities,” the ruling read, adding that it was incumbent upon investigating officers, lawyers and prosecutors to follow the law and cooperate with courts so as to avoid unnecessary and unjustified delays in early disposal of the cases.
Likewise, cooperation between investigating agencies and prosecutors/complainants is essential in order to pursue the matter to ensure timely and fair conclusion of the cases.
The judgement said that another issue which is being faced by the litigants is the inordinate and unreasonable delay in conclusion of criminal trials and appeals/petitions, without any substantial progress, which is a crucial challenge to the administration of criminal justice system in the country.
"Such delay is antithetic to the foundational principles of liberty, fair trial and due process. Under such circumstances, it is the primary duty of the investigating agencies and every judge of the country to take into account such fundamental rights of persons, whose cases are brought before them by strict adherence to law,” the judgement read.
It highlighted that the present case is a classic example, wherein, the respondents were arrested in the year 2008, they were convicted by the trial court on January 12, 2011 and remained in custody till January 13, 2015, when they were acquitted by the appellate court. “Though the respondents got acquittal, but they did not get justice in time.”
"No one can justify the detention of the respondents, depriving them from their constitutional right of liberty and free movement for long seven years. In addition, they have faced the agony and misery of a prolonged trial and unreasonable delay in conclusion of appeal, besides incurring expenditure.”
"They remained uncompensated, because there is no mechanism for doing so. The famous legal maxim that justice delayed is justice denied, is often used when unjustified delay occurs in disposal of disputes,” it said.
When the legal machinery fails to deliver justice within a reasonable time, it not only violates the constitutional mandate, but also leads to frustration, the top court emphasised.
"Thus, an inexpensive and timely justice is a requirement of the Constitution, which must be observed by all stakeholders in all circumstances without any excuse.”
The judgement noted that the basic duty of the Judges is to protect the fundamental rights of every person, including a complainant and an accused, in all circumstances.
"They are under obligation to discharge their duties and perform their functions with open mind, without any influence or pressure, fear or favour, affection or ill-will, honestly, justly and to the best of their ability, by applying the Constitution and law in their true perspective, on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case. In doing so, they are required to get the assistance of lawyers, prosecutors and guidance from the judgments of this Court and the High Courts, in order to reach a correct conclusion.”
"This will protect the fundamental rights of the people to a possible extent, will serve the interest of justice, and will also boost faith and confidence of people in our judicial system.”
"We do not doubt the integrity and competence of any Judge. There might be multiple reasons for wrong decision, but there should be no excuse for a Judge in delivering a judgment contrary to the law and facts. In any case, the Judges must be aware of their judicial powers and must exercise them to reach a correct conclusion, in order to protect the fundamental rights of the people and to promote the interest of justice."
“It is obligatory upon the Trial Court to ensure constitutional guarantee of life, liberty, fair trial and due process enshrined in Articles 9 and 10A of the Constitution. Section 265-D of Cr. P.C. provides that the Trial Court should consider all the available material, whereafter, if it is of the opinion that there is ground for proceeding with the trial of the accused, it shall frame in writing a charge against the accused.”
It stipulated that if no charge could be framed or if charge is framed, but there is no probability of the accused being convicted of the charge on the basis of the material available on the record, the trial court has power under sections 265-K and 249-A, of Cr.P.C., as the case may be, to acquit an accused at any stage of the case, either on its own motion or upon an application in this behalf filed by an accused after providing opportunity of hearing to all concern
"Such power is mandatory in nature, which must be exercised judiciously in order to prevent the abuse of process of law and frivolous and malicious litigation, which will also result into curtailing the backlog," the ruling added.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ