Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi today took charge as the new Attorney General and made a strong pitch for a multi-pronged approach to reduce backlog of cases by increasing number of court working days and fixing a time limit for advocates to argue the case.
A noted corporate lawyer, 59-year-old Rohatgi, who will have a three year term, said there is a need to change the mind set of bureaucrats who, instead of taking decisions, leave it to the courts to decide all contentious issues.
“Leave it to the court to decide, these attitudes have to be changed,” he said, adding, “Image of the judiciary is sagging and you have to shake every part of the judicial functioning and redundant laws and procedures in criminal laws have to be shed.”
Speaking to reporters, he said number of holidays should be scaled down and also favoured setting up of National Judicial Commission for the appointment of judges. He said for 40 years it was the government that was appointing the judges and then for 20 years collegium system is in operation and now there is a need to have another experiment.
He said in no other country cases dragged on for so many years without any conclusion and suggested that lawyers should be asked to complete their arguments within a stipulated time period.
Rohatgi, son of former Delhi High Court judge Justice Awadh Behari Rohatgi, has represented Gujarat government in the Supreme Court in the 2002 Gujarat riots and fake encounter death cases, including the Best Bakery and Zahira Sheikh cases.
He said Supreme Court should be restored the status for which it was set-up and not every case should travel to apex court. He also also favoured senior lawyers being consulted before the appointment of judges. Rohatgi had also served as an Additional Solicitor General during previous NDA regime.
(Source: PTI)
To advocate general rahtogiji,
I agree with you. Sir it is advocates who take adjournments after adjournments. In fact both side advocates sometimes have nexus in taking adjournments. Sir my family’s agri land has been transferred by land mafias in nexus with revenue officials and notary advocate in 2008. My husband a senior citizen is fighting since then. But till date my case has not come up for trial .because of advocates. My husband travels hundred kilometers on every hearing. Sir my request to you is that RECIEPT of the fee paid to advocates should be shown along with plaint copy and written statement. Lawyers nowadays charge heavy fee in advance and even after wards they keep on demanding money. There is no hard and fast rule with respect to fee. Poor people are cheated because they have no guts to open their mouth before their lawyer. I have seen poor farmers touching the feet of lawyers, that show how helpless they are. Sir there should be law restricting the litigants to go to high court on every small issue even before the trial begins. Sir there is deep rooted corruption in judiciary in karnataka. I know a corrupt judge who in the first place took cognizance and later dismissed my case . The present judge is so corrupt that the lawyers are just taking adjournments because they all want this judge to transfer. Even judges should not allow more than three adjournments to each party once the case comes up for trial. There are so many frivolous cases filed by litigants, those people should be punished and if Ned heavily. Govt officials who violate laws in nexus with other persons should also be punished. In karnataka they say govt work is gods work. Is cheating the public is gods work .II. PROVISIONS CONSIDERED
(a) Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Section 80 and Order V
2.1 In order to shorten delay in disposal of cases, it is necessary that provisions parallel to section 80 CPC be introduced for all kinds of civil suits and cases proposed to be filed by a litigant.
2.2 The Supreme Court has held in Bihari Chowdhary v. State of Bihar1 that the object underlying section 80 CPC is to ensure that before a suit is instituted against the Government or a public officer, the Government or the officer concerned is afforded an opportunity to scrutinise the claim in respect of which the suit is proposed to be filed and if it be found to be a just claim, to take immediate action and thereby avoid unnecessary litigation and save public time and money by settling the claim without driving the person, who has issued the notice, to institute the suit involving considerable expenditure and delay. The relevant passages are extracted below:II. PROVISIONS CONSIDERED
(a) Code of Civil Procedure 1908 – Section 80 and Order V
2.1 In order to shorten delay in disposal of cases, it is necessary that provisions parallel to section 80 CPC be introduced for all kinds of civil suits and cases proposed to be filed by a litigant.
2.2 The Supreme Court has held in Bihari Chowdhary v. State of Bihar1 that the object underlying section 80 CPC is to ensure that before a suit is instituted against the Government or a public officer, the Government or the officer concerned is afforded an opportunity to scrutinise the claim in respect of which the suit is proposed to be filed and if it be found to be a just claim, to take immediate action and thereby avoid unnecessary litigation and save public time and money by settling the claim without driving the person, who has issued the notice, to institute the suit involving considerable expenditure and delay. The relevant passages are extracted below: