‘Adjourning’ judge pops up on CJI’s grid

Source: DNA dated 19.03.2019

Tareekh pe Tareekh | SC uses national database to monitor judicial laxity
Abraham Thomas abraham.thomas@dnaindia.net

New Delhi: The National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) is proving to be a handy database for the highest court of the country for keeping a close watch on trial court judges and monitoring their performance.

This came to light last week when the Supreme Court received an application from a district court judge in Deoria, Uttar Pradesh requesting for more time to finish a trial. The judicial officer had been directed by the apex court on December 9, 2016 to complete a trial under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act within six months.

Instead of dealing with the judicial officer’s request in a routine manner, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi asked the Registry of the Supreme Court to use the NJDG to check how the case had progressed.

It was then discovered that the judicial officer was at fault as he was unnecessarily adjourning the case, regardless of the deadline set by the apex court.

Taking serious exception to this conduct, the bench of Chief Justice Gogoi and Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna last week issued a notice to the judicial officer calling for a report to explain the “serious lapse” on his part in complying with the top court’s direction. The matter has been posted for a hearing after four weeks.

The Supreme Court Registry, upon inquiry from NJDG, found that the dates mentioned by the judicial officer, who is also the presiding officer of Deoria district courts, to be wrong. Beginning January 29, 2019, the presiding officer granted seven adjournments citing various grounds, the SC Registry noted.

On two occasions, the judicial officer did not take up the case citing he was out conducting inspection.

This prompted the CJI-headed bench to observe, “We do not understand what kind of inspections the presiding officer had carried out on as many as two occasions which inhibited him from hearing the case.”

In its December 9, 2016 order, while dealing with a petition by the complainant in the case to cancel the bail granted to the accused, the court refused to interfere, but ordered trial to be completed expeditiously. It specifically directed the trial judge, “If any complaint is raised before the trial court with regard to the conduct of the trial by the prosecution or the conduct of the accused in influencing witnesses, the trial court would be free to pass appropriate orders in this regard.” But the CJI-led bench was irked to note that since January 29, when the arguments were to commence, the presiding officer allowed three adjournments to the accused. After going through the facts in entirety, the SC bench said, “This prima facie shows serious lack of concern on the part of the presiding officer to adhere to the time-bound schedule.”