The Supreme Court has expressed its ‘strong disapproval’ of the tendency of some judges to pass their burden to fellow judges or to subordinate courts when confronted with complicated issues.
The court said that such an approach weakens our judicial system.‘Of late, we have come across several orders which would indicate that some of the judges are averse to decide the disputes when they are complex and complicated, and would find ways and means to pass on the burden to their brethren or remand the matter to lower courts not for good reasons,’ said an apex court bench of Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan Tuesday.
Justice Radhakrishnan said: ‘Few judges, for quick disposal, and for statistical purposes, get rid of cases, driving the parties to move representations before some authority…to decide the dispute which the judges should have done (themselves).’
The court said this while setting aside an Uttarakhand High Court verdict upholding the recommendation by the Haridwar District Magistrate awarding land compensation to respondents Sunil Kumar Vaish and others who were not in legal possession of land that was acquired way back in 1948.
The judgment said that the duty was cast upon the judges to give finality to the litigation so that the parties knew where they stood.
‘The court’s clear reasoning and analysis are basic requirements in a judicial determination when the parties demand it so that they can administer justice justly and correctly in relation to findings on law and facts,’ the judgment said.
The court said that the parties to dispute should be convinced that their case has been properly considered and decided. ‘The quality of judicial decision depends principally on the quality of its reasoning,’ the judgment underlined.
The judgment said that the impugned high court judgment did not ‘satisfy’ the standards it was expected to follow.
‘Needless to say these types of orders weaken our judicial system. Serious attention is called for to enhance the quality of adjudication in our courts. Public trust and confidence in courts stem, quite often, from the direct experience of citizens from the judicial adjudication of their disputes,’ the judgment said.
