The law for a bicycle and millions of dollars
Judges are supposed to and should always decide all matters without fear or favour.
Sir, at stake is millions of dollars and the suit has been pending adjudication for over 18 months. I am neither asking nor expecting my case to be given any special treatment but, Sir, 18 months is still a very long time for a suit to be pending before the Civil Court.
This was essentially one of my arguments at a recent Civil Court hearing. To my dismay, after hearing this argument, the judge looked offended and remarked that you are talking about millions of dollars because your client has that kind of money, but to me, a case involving theft of a bicycle is equally important and deserves the same treatment. Rather sheepishly, I reminded the judge that I had prefaced my argument by saying that my case did not deserve special treatment just because it involved a significant amount of money. However, it was clear that the strategy of appealing to the judge’s sense of justice had backfired.
As soon as I stepped out of the court, I started thinking whether or not some cases should be accorded higher priority just because of the higher stakes involved. After thinking long and hard, I was in complete agreement with the judge, convinced that it would be a travesty of justice if my case was given any special treatment.
This is because going strictly by the law, judges are supposed to and should always decide all matters without fear or favour, dispensing justice in a manner that is proverbially blind to the parties to the case and the subject matter of the proceedings. This is what they swear to while taking the oath of this office and, any favourable treatment accorded to a case by them would clearly be a violation of this oath.
In view of the considerable delays in most — if not all — of the cases pending before the civil courts, it is obvious that the reason for these delays is not any diligent and good faith efforts on the part of these judges to perform their judicial duties without fear or favour. It is common knowledge that these delays are a systemic issue caused primarily by adjournments sought by lawyers and rather generously and almost invariably granted by the judges. It is essentially a nexus of the three players, the litigant, the lawyer and the judge, whereby the litigant instructs his lawyer to seek adjournments, the lawyer happily obliges and the judge graciously grants it.
Barring some exceptional circumstances, in exercise of its broad discretionary powers, the judges can and should deny these requests. Their failure to do so amounts to an abuse of their discretionary powers.
Going back to my case, I must mention that as part of my efforts to expedite proceedings, I also filed two applications in the district court; a court superior to the civil court (at least in theory). On both occasions, the district judge passed an order directing the civil court to expedite the proceedings and decide the matter in three to four months. The only problem with these orders was that they were merely directory and not binding in nature. The obvious question then is: what is the point of such orders? Is it just to satisfy the client that the lawyer is doing something about the delay? While this is one of the objectives, these orders are also sought with the hope that they will serve as ‘friendly reminders’, for lack of a more apt characterisation. On the other hand, this reminder may not be considered very friendly if the civil judge takes it as a personal attack on the manner in which he is conducting court proceedings.
So guess where I am after going through these hoops? I am back exactly where I started, before the same Civil Judge, seemingly without any legal recourse and at the mercy of his discretion which will surely be abused on at least a few more occasions.
While I complain about the delay in my case and try to craft an alternate strategy, I sincerely hope that in conducting proceedings without fear or favour, the judge does not make the guy whose bicycle was stolen, wait over 18 months to get it back.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 6th, 2012.
This was essentially one of my arguments at a recent Civil Court hearing. To my dismay, after hearing this argument, the judge looked offended and remarked that you are talking about millions of dollars because your client has that kind of money, but to me, a case involving theft of a bicycle is equally important and deserves the same treatment. Rather sheepishly, I reminded the judge that I had prefaced my argument by saying that my case did not deserve special treatment just because it involved a significant amount of money. However, it was clear that the strategy of appealing to the judge’s sense of justice had backfired.
As soon as I stepped out of the court, I started thinking whether or not some cases should be accorded higher priority just because of the higher stakes involved. After thinking long and hard, I was in complete agreement with the judge, convinced that it would be a travesty of justice if my case was given any special treatment.
This is because going strictly by the law, judges are supposed to and should always decide all matters without fear or favour, dispensing justice in a manner that is proverbially blind to the parties to the case and the subject matter of the proceedings. This is what they swear to while taking the oath of this office and, any favourable treatment accorded to a case by them would clearly be a violation of this oath.
In view of the considerable delays in most — if not all — of the cases pending before the civil courts, it is obvious that the reason for these delays is not any diligent and good faith efforts on the part of these judges to perform their judicial duties without fear or favour. It is common knowledge that these delays are a systemic issue caused primarily by adjournments sought by lawyers and rather generously and almost invariably granted by the judges. It is essentially a nexus of the three players, the litigant, the lawyer and the judge, whereby the litigant instructs his lawyer to seek adjournments, the lawyer happily obliges and the judge graciously grants it.
Barring some exceptional circumstances, in exercise of its broad discretionary powers, the judges can and should deny these requests. Their failure to do so amounts to an abuse of their discretionary powers.
Going back to my case, I must mention that as part of my efforts to expedite proceedings, I also filed two applications in the district court; a court superior to the civil court (at least in theory). On both occasions, the district judge passed an order directing the civil court to expedite the proceedings and decide the matter in three to four months. The only problem with these orders was that they were merely directory and not binding in nature. The obvious question then is: what is the point of such orders? Is it just to satisfy the client that the lawyer is doing something about the delay? While this is one of the objectives, these orders are also sought with the hope that they will serve as ‘friendly reminders’, for lack of a more apt characterisation. On the other hand, this reminder may not be considered very friendly if the civil judge takes it as a personal attack on the manner in which he is conducting court proceedings.
So guess where I am after going through these hoops? I am back exactly where I started, before the same Civil Judge, seemingly without any legal recourse and at the mercy of his discretion which will surely be abused on at least a few more occasions.
While I complain about the delay in my case and try to craft an alternate strategy, I sincerely hope that in conducting proceedings without fear or favour, the judge does not make the guy whose bicycle was stolen, wait over 18 months to get it back.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 6th, 2012.