Most litigants prefer to go up to the Supreme Court for final judgment on the basis of several layers of the appealing mechanism available in India (Editorial, Aug.12). This is primarily done to gain time and drag things in order to tire out the opposite party. This practice sends out two messages — that is, the rich and the powerful have an escape route from immediate conviction, and it is only the Supreme Court’s verdict which is fair and just. Why have all the lower courts then? The need of the hour is for a quick justice delivery system.
Rameeza A. Rasheed,
Chennai
While there is a need to reduce the number of appeals before the top court, there are other ways also to introduce change using speed, equity and relevance as the pivots of sound jurisprudence. Meaningless adjournments that are spaced by long intervals of time and an overemphasis on procedural correctness and time-consuming arguments lead to “such languid steps that crime escapes from” its consequences. Frivolous PILs (such as a ban on ‘Sardar jokes’) and cost-ineffective litigation by the government, the leading litigator in the country, should be discouraged. As for equity, “laws grind the poor” because of factors such as their complexity, corruption in lower courts, the high cost of litigation and intimidation/inducement of the witnesses by the rich accused. India has the dubious reputation of being one of the worst law-laden countries. Many Acts are irrelevant and obsolete. The process of weeding them out should be accelerated.
Y.G. Chouksey,
Pune
