Editorial Desk :
Justice process cannot be locked down. The pandemic is not disappearing so soon. Judges have to think with all seriousness on how to keep the system of justice working in this dangerous situation. The judges are not performing their services if they are not in a position to function. We are not returning to a risk free time anytime soon to have our normal ways as we knew it. So the rules of procedure have to be adjusted to make disposal of cases fast and easy. The judges will have to be liberal in attitude to do substantial justice the cut short way. But justice cannot be locked down. Most of the courts are closed. So many judges have much time to think and devise a way out of the jam.
The courts have introduced in a limited way the online system. By now judges have acquired some experience to know how inconvenient it is for the lawyers and judges to interact for the serious responsibility of doing justice. Our information is the lawyers are not comfortable and happy. The litigant public are also not content that justice can be done without direct face exchanges between the lawyers and judges.
The people are to get justice from the judges but with the assistance of the lawyers. But in the end justice comes from the judges and they are to bear the main burden and anxiety of keeping the justice process open and active.
We do not want to be unkind to our judges to say they are not fully conscious of their responsibility. But to take a decision is hard and they must not shun the hard decision when times are hard and the issue is doing justice.
We understand the concern of the judges about keeping judges and lawyers protected from the highly dangerous virus. It is also true that the courts alone cannot guarantee full protection. The lawyers have to meet their clients. Everything about court cases cannot be done online. The lawyers have to be responsible in their court behaviour.
What we urge is that all the lower courts and Benches of the Supreme Court must remain functional. The wheel of justice must go on rotating. All matters in courts are urgent. The litigant public come to courts as a last resort. Even then the lawyers must cooperate to decide which are more urgent in the backdrop of the pandemic danger.
The lawyers of lower courts are taking all the risks of clustering to practice online. Only a few of them have the facilities and many others crowd to use the facilities risking contracting the virus.
Online courts sit for a few hours. That shows that online practice is inconvenient both for the lawyers and the judges.
The safety of the lawyers and judges must be the primary concern but their remaining alive also means nothing if they choose to quarantine themselves with no work.
We have also limitations of software and hardware for use of virtual servers. We must get used to using modern technology. So why not keep both the systems in use?
The lawyers and judges can decide which are the most urgent cases. The cases which were part heard should be completed. It is accepted that in this pandemic condition cooperation would be necessary both from the lawyers and judges to understand that time is difficult and normal ways are not available.
Keeping the justice system closed is not an option. The Chief Justice should meet the medical experts and take their advice in planning the court arrangement. The problem is medical so we should let the medical experts help us to keep the justice system open.
Life is difficult for everybody. As a disease coronavirus is not all that dangerous if hospital facilities are adequate and the requirements of using face masks and maintaining safe distance are strictly followed. With coronavirus all around nothing is foolproof or risk free. The days of risk free life are gone till a vaccine is found.
Justice process cannot be locked down. The pandemic is not disappearing so soon. Judges have to think with all seriousness on how to keep the system of justice working in this dangerous situation. The judges are not performing their services if they are not in a position to function. We are not returning to a risk free time anytime soon to have our normal ways as we knew it. So the rules of procedure have to be adjusted to make disposal of cases fast and easy. The judges will have to be liberal in attitude to do substantial justice the cut short way. But justice cannot be locked down. Most of the courts are closed. So many judges have much time to think and devise a way out of the jam.
The courts have introduced in a limited way the online system. By now judges have acquired some experience to know how inconvenient it is for the lawyers and judges to interact for the serious responsibility of doing justice. Our information is the lawyers are not comfortable and happy. The litigant public are also not content that justice can be done without direct face exchanges between the lawyers and judges.
The people are to get justice from the judges but with the assistance of the lawyers. But in the end justice comes from the judges and they are to bear the main burden and anxiety of keeping the justice process open and active.
We do not want to be unkind to our judges to say they are not fully conscious of their responsibility. But to take a decision is hard and they must not shun the hard decision when times are hard and the issue is doing justice.
We understand the concern of the judges about keeping judges and lawyers protected from the highly dangerous virus. It is also true that the courts alone cannot guarantee full protection. The lawyers have to meet their clients. Everything about court cases cannot be done online. The lawyers have to be responsible in their court behaviour.
What we urge is that all the lower courts and Benches of the Supreme Court must remain functional. The wheel of justice must go on rotating. All matters in courts are urgent. The litigant public come to courts as a last resort. Even then the lawyers must cooperate to decide which are more urgent in the backdrop of the pandemic danger.
The lawyers of lower courts are taking all the risks of clustering to practice online. Only a few of them have the facilities and many others crowd to use the facilities risking contracting the virus.
Online courts sit for a few hours. That shows that online practice is inconvenient both for the lawyers and the judges.
The safety of the lawyers and judges must be the primary concern but their remaining alive also means nothing if they choose to quarantine themselves with no work.
We have also limitations of software and hardware for use of virtual servers. We must get used to using modern technology. So why not keep both the systems in use?
The lawyers and judges can decide which are the most urgent cases. The cases which were part heard should be completed. It is accepted that in this pandemic condition cooperation would be necessary both from the lawyers and judges to understand that time is difficult and normal ways are not available.
Keeping the justice system closed is not an option. The Chief Justice should meet the medical experts and take their advice in planning the court arrangement. The problem is medical so we should let the medical experts help us to keep the justice system open.
Life is difficult for everybody. As a disease coronavirus is not all that dangerous if hospital facilities are adequate and the requirements of using face masks and maintaining safe distance are strictly followed. With coronavirus all around nothing is foolproof or risk free. The days of risk free life are gone till a vaccine is found.
