Gulam Rabbani :
Procrastination at every stage of a trial proceeding has become an inevitable part of our judicial system now. This delay especially in case of receiving a written or full text of an order or judgment is multiplying the sufferings of the litigants.
Sometimes it takes up to a few years for completing a full text of a judgment. It is frustrating the justice-seekers in many cases. It is not possible for someone to claim the judgment’s result without receiving the certified copy.
Legal experts say delay in publishing a verdict curtails the fundamental right of a citizen in getting justice in the shortest possible time.
Former Chief Justice Surenda Kumar Sinha in 2017 took an initiative to solve the problem. The then Appellate Division which upheld the High Court verdict declaring the 16th constitutional amendment illegal formulated a 40-point code of conduct for the judges of the Supreme Court.
The code of conduct Stressed on to avoid delays in passing judgments or orders, A judge should not take more than six months in writing a full order or judgment after its deliberation, also read the code of conduct. But this guideline is unheeded in most cases.
The case regarding the thirteenth amendment of the constitution was very important in the political history of the country. The apex court delivered a short verdict on May 10 in 2011 over the issue and it published the full text of the verdict after one and four months, on September 16 in 2012.
Former Chief Justice ABM Khairul Haque signed the verdict after his retirement and a controversy arose for his signing after his retirement. There was a kind of anxiety among the political parties of the country about this verdict throughout the time.
On April 3, 2016, the High Court ruled that after the death of a person, the money deposited in his/her accounts would go to their heirs instead of nominees. After making a rule absolute, the HC bench comprising Justice Naima Haider and Justice Khizir Ahmed Choudhury said that as per the law the nominee is a trustee and agent only. The deposited money of the dead people will have to be divided among the heirs as per the Mohammedan Law, the court added.
Though the High Court delivered the verdict on April 3, 2016, the full text of the verdict was released in 2019.
Before publishing the full text of this verdict the Bangladesh Bank (BB) had issued a circular directing all financial institutions to pay deposited money to the nominee or nominees after the death of a single or joint account holders.
According to the circular, the deposited money could be paid to a single or multiple nominees mentioned in the account after the demise of the depositor or depositors. It also said the depositors could choose new nominees in place of the old ones at any time.
Later, the BB issued more circular on the issue citing same statement which had thrown the beneficiaries in a confusing situation.
Not only these two cases, there are thousands of cases in which the full verdict are being published after a few years. But it is not possible for someone to claim the judgement’s result without receiving the certified copy.
A senior Supreme Court lawyer said on condition of anonymity, “A judge has to hear many cases at a time. In many cases the verdict is written and published after one or two years. But after a year, many of the arguments of the hearing may not be in judge’s memory. In truth, delay is a matter of pain for a justice-seeker.”
Mohammad Shishir Manir, another Supreme Court lawyer, said, “I think the verdict should be published in writing as soon as it is delivered. This customs has been introduced in the Indian Supreme Court. The full text of the verdict is announced there on the day it is delivered.”
“It is not acceptable to publish the full text of a verdict after six months of its deliberation. It is causing a serious suffering to the justice-seekers and casting them into an uncertainty. According to Article 35 of the Constitution, to get justice in the shortest possible time is a fundamental right of a justice-seeker. Delay in publishing full verdict curtails this right of the citizens,” added the lawyer.
