Ubi Jus, Ibi Remedium – A Critical Analysis

Abstract

It is a cause of concern that delay caused in the courts is a perpetual problem faced by litigants who knock the sacred door of the temple of justice with great expectations. The non delivery of the judgments and orders within the stipulated time period is a cause of concern and these delays are created by judges and judges alone. Non delivery of judgments and orders is not a new problem. It has existed since the evolution of modern judicial system.

Every litigant has a constitutional right to secure justice and the non-delivery of judgment after conclusion of arguments causes indignation and perturbation to the poor litigant. I am not speaking of those cases involving lengthy arguments and sophisticated questions of law. My concern is about simple cases which can be easily disposed off where there is violation of the rights of a citizen by the state. I refer to the plight of a citizen rushing to the court for an injunction or whose rights are violated by different arms or authorities of the government. The litigant approaches the court under the strong belief that irrespective of the costs and expenses involved in conducting the case, the sacred temple of justice would uphold justice and provide relief once approached.

The common man believes that judiciary is the strongest pillar of democracy and remains apolitical and untouched by corruption of any species. He believes that judgments and orders would come out after the conclusion of arguments without intentional delay. If the litigant does not get the decision in his favor, he could move to the next higher court in the hierarchy. Thus, timely delivery of judgments and orders plays a crucial role in ensuring justice to the litigant, failing which the alleged violator happily goes on procreating his evil designs making mockery of the temple of justice.

When the arguments are over, the petitioner goes to bed every night believing that the long-awaited judgment would arrive the next day. The remedies available to the litigant are limited at such circumstances when the delivery of judgments is delayed. It is true that the litigant can apprise the judge concerned through his counsel or file a petition for re posting of the case and the like. The litigant will be extremely frustrated and losses faith upon judiciary if nothing happens even despite such endeavors. The lethargic attitude of the Judge aggravates the disappointment of the litigant and adds to the exasperation of the litigant. It is true that some cases end up in sheer misfortune but it is the duty of the judge to protect the litigant from a worse calamity.