Courts, Staffing, Lawyers, Judges and Justice

The physical condition of buildings, human resources, quality and quantity of staff and judges’ heavy work loads speak volumes about the conditions under which justice is dispensed.

A civil judge (the lowest tier of the civil judiciary) in Punjab hears 150 cases per day on average. This makes an average hearing of 3,600 cases per month. Even discounting repetition of hearings, the average number of cases heard by a civil judge per month  is close to 2,000. The facts are more revealing if the daily equation is looked at: a case gets 2.8 minutes of a judge’s time. No meaningful exercise of dispensation of justice is possible in such an overloaded judiciary. This is only a part of the picture. The pathetic condition of buildings, furniture, facilities for litigants and availability of record are some of the other factors.

Visits to the central record room of the Rawalpindi Courts in 2001, before some litigants who did not want the records to be examined burned down the record room, showed that files were shoved in bundles of cloth and then placed on shelves, one on top of the other. Each bundle had at  least an inch thick layer of dust on it, with tags of files scattered around, pages flying by. It was a scene of absolute chaos. Yet, the record room clerks were able to retrieve what was left of the records and provide them to litigants by pocketing Rs.50 to Rs. 100 per copy.

Interestingly, even poor litigants were willing to pay the required and reutilized bribe to get the record copies. This is a clear example of institutionalized corruption.

The official fee for a record copy is R.4 (deliverable within 3 days). There was no way one could get the record within the stipulated number of days through official channels. Files of decided cases do not reach the record room for months. The clients have to go to the relevant courts to get records by paying bribes to ahlmads and readers, and then have to get them photocopied at their own expense. After getting a photocopy, the bring it to the copy section to get it officially stamped. Once again they pay Rs.50 on the average per copy for stamping. Eventually, each copy costs the litigants between  Rs.100 to 150, besides the opportunity cost of the time that  they spend trying to access documents in the relevant courts and negotiating with the clerks. This phenomenon is reflective of pricing distortions for judicial services. The question remains, why can this informal over-charging not be legalised? If litigants, including poor litigants, are willing to buy a copy for Rs.100, then why is it not possible for the government to increase the price of an official copy to Rs.50, for instance, and make it available to litigants with better staffing, buildings and furnishing? In this way, litigants will have to pay less than the prevalent bribe price and the service will be available to everyone across the board in a reliable and uniform manner.

Members of the Bar play the role of ‘rotors’ in the judiciary. Fieldwork revealed, particularly in Punjab, that lawyers almost preyed on the litigants in property cases. They continued to give false hopes about the imminent end of the trial, while enriching themselves and court officials (including secretarial functionaries referred to as the munshi and ahlmad) at the expense of the litigants. Many lawyers, defence as well as prosecution, encouraged the use of their office to bribe the judge when the time for the final decision approached. The lawyer of the losing party would return the money stating that the other side had offered move. A few litigants with big stakes admitted having ‘purchased’ judgement. A few judges interviewed were of the opinion that the lawyers, besides colluding in delaying tactics to extract money, also attempted to monopolise court proceedings and formed powerful cliques to curtail judges’ powers vis-à-vis the lawyers.

Members of the Bar also expressed their grievances against the overall structure of the judiciary where they had to operate in dilapidated Bar Rooms, make-shift tin offices and deal with court clerks who were no twilling to share records with them unless they were bribed.

Besides improving the quality of law education and Bar facilities, there is a need to consider whether an independent legal services system can replace the present system. In such a system, lawyers will not argue on behalf of any party. Rather, they will assist the court on points of law. Such a system will also enhance judge’s control over the case proceedings.