Lacking in judgement prompts Madras High Court to take hard stance

The lower judiciary in Tamil Nadu, besides coming in for severe criticism owing to rampant corruption, and inordinate delay in judgment delivery, has also been drawing flak for inefficiency and moral turpitude. In fact, the inefficiency of most of the judges at large has become a constant source of debate, especially with the Madras High Court trashing their judgements, owing to their poor understanding of law and lack of legal acumen. 

In one instance, a division bench of Justices S Nagamuthu and N Authinathan, was so appalled by the judgment of a trial court judge, that they decided to send him back to the law school. The case pertained to a group clash that resulted in one person getting killed and several others injured. As many as 50 people were arrested. However, owing to the lapses of the trial judge, ranging from framing of charges to recording of evidences and imposing penalty, all the accused in the case were acquitted. Also, the division bench, taking strong exception to the trial judge not even being aware of the basic concept of constructive liability, as dealt with under section 149 of the IPC, sent him for training at the Judicial Academy, to enable him to re-learn his judicial responsibilities. 

In another instance, while acquitting a man convicted by a trial court for murder, the Madras High Court observed that the courts cannot assume the role of a monarch or dictator and impose any punishment on anyone, according to their whims and fancies, in the absence of any legal evidence. A full bench comprising Justice S Nagamuthu, Justice P N Prakash and Justice N. Authinathan, held that, “Choked with emotion or driven by local sentiments, out of mere surmise or suspicion, a court of law cannot afford to convict any accused.” 

The scathing attack had come about, based on the trial court’s order which sentenced a person to life imprisonment merely based on the previous cases against him. The trial judge in his order indicated, “From these cases, it could be inferred that the accused had the modus operandi of trespassing into temples and houses and kill the inmates to commit robbery.” Setting aside the sentence, the bench said, “This conclusion of the trial court is totally erroneous and illegal, as pendency of other criminal cases against the accused cannot be a ground even to remotely assume, that the accused was the perpetrator of the crime in the instant case.” 

One of the worst judgments that had come to the fore, was about the trial court sentencing five persons to life for murder and robbery, merely because they belonged to a particular community. The Madras High Court was quick to strike it down and acquitted all the accused, after observing, “In the instant case, the trail court has traced the socioeconomic as well as the communal background of the accused and has concluded that these accused have committed the crime solely because they belong to a particular Community.” The bench also held that it is a classic example of how a court of law in this country should not pen a judgment and directed the Registry to circulate the copy of the Judgment to all the lower court judges, to impress upon them on the need to abstain from offering a judgment based on extraneous considerations like communal and social  background. 

Besides the delay in delivering judgments, trial courts have also been accused of resorting to shortcut approaches, mainly to favour someone. In one such instance, Justice M Venugopal slammed the shortcut approach adopted by the Trial court while dismissing a complaint because the accused was absent, held that the Criminal Procedure Code does not envisage for dismissal of complaint or discharge of an accused, merely on such grounds. On directing the trial court to restore the case and dispose it within two months, Justice Venugopal had observed, “It is to be borne in mind that a court of law is meant to deliver substantial justice to the parties to secure the ends of justice. A shortcut approach adopted by the trial court resulting in dismissal of the complaint would cause disastrous effect on the  complaint filed.” 

Trial courts evolving their own bail conditions like asking the bail applicants to cut ‘Seema Karuvelam’ trees and fill troughs of forest department have also come for sharp criticism. Justice P Devadass, on describing it as an obnoxious practice, also held, “The present spree or competition among judges in our State to  impose such bail conditions signals not march of law, but an onslaught on human rights and human sentiments.” He also observed, “Courts are not above law. They are not extra-constitutional authorities on earth, which have suddenly descended from the heaven. In a democratic country based on the written Constitution, courts exercising sovereign powers of State must do so in accordance with law.”

Justice Devadass had also come down on the lower courts for demanding production of property documents or any other document, to show proof of property, either movable or immovable, for bail or surety bond. While dealing with such a case, he said, “The courts demanding production of VAO certificate, residence certificate, solvency certificate or Tahsildar certificate are not mentioned in the CrPC. These are all creations and inventions of certain courts. It is clear that these are not out of any judicial thinking, but an outcome of useless thinking curbing the liberty of the individual. “ These judgements merely remain a tip of the iceberg, revealing the aspect of inexperienced lawyers becoming judges at lower courts. Moreover, with many cases being bestowed on them, the disposal rate is also abysmally low. As per the Indian Judiciary Annual Report, as on July 2016 there remains a total of 2.81 crore cases pending in various lower courts across the country, of which Tamil Nadu accounts for 11.13 lakh pending cases.