ALOK PRASANNA writes from Bangalore: Courtroom No.15 of the Supreme Court of India in New Delhi is no bigger than the ones that are shown in most T.N. Seetharam serials.
It was packed with lawyers, their assistants and interns, litigants, court officers, apart from the two Justices themselves, and the two law students on their Supreme Court internships.
To tell the truth, as the Judges’ interns, we occupied the “best seats in the House”.
I could see all the players clearly, and had no stake in anything that was going on. It was only natural that my attention was taken up by the one guy who seemed most out of place there. More so because he was clearly one of the litigants but was sitting, somewhat uneasily, in the section reserved for advocates.
He carried with him a large bundle of paper bound in a cardboard file, like any other litigant, and a couple of law books. It was then that I figured that he was one of those people who had come to argue their own cases before the Supreme Court.
Such persons were rare enough, but one who seemed to be in his late twenties, still rarer. A short, wiry man, with an anxious look, he barely filled out the ample chairs in the advocates’ section as he waited for his case to be called up.
That day was admissions day, when litigants approach the Supreme Court asking it to grant special leave to hear their cases in appeal. This is one area where the Supreme Court is granted virtually untrammelled discretion. How it chooses to exercise it is usually dependent on the skill of the counsel in pointing out how gross injustice had been caused to their client because of that one egregious finding of law, or that one totally ignored piece of evidence that was not taken into account by the lower courts. This of course has to be done in less than a minute because each Bench of two judges has to decide which of the about 70-80 matters placed before them, they have to admit for proper hearing later.
When his number was called up, the litigant walked up to the front, and placed his file on the table in front of the Bar (or behind it depending on which side of the Bar you are seated on). I got a better look at him, and he looked even smaller than he seemed. With nervous hands, he opened his file and picked up one of the books he was carrying, gathered himself up, and began in a faltering tone that gained confidence as he spoke. He spoke in halting but grammatically correct English.
His claim was fairly straightforward. He had been dismissed from his employment with the Delhi office of a major international organisation, and challenged the dismissal before Labour Court. The Labour Court had dismissed his claim on the ground that it could not entertain cases filed by employees of such international organisations.
He had done his research thoroughly, though. He cited cases where the Supreme Court had held contrary to the Labour Court’s finding, and was in the midst of mentioning yet another when the Judge stopped him.
“Your case is barred by limitation….”
A wave of incomprehension washed over the litigant.
“It has been over a year after the time for filing the appeal has expired. What is your explanation for that, and where is the petition for condoning the delay?”
Confusion. Perhaps they had misunderstood what he was saying. He tried to cite the next case in a faltering voice.
“No, no, we don’t want to hear the precedents. Tell us why you have filed this appeal with such delay?”
He had been running around try to get a lawyer, he said, more and more unsure of where this was going. He had been researching to argue his case before the Supreme Court.
“Why didn’t you get a lawyer to argue your case?”
He didn’t have the money, not after he lost his job and spent it all in fighting the case in the Labour Court.
“Look here, your petition is already a year late. We will dismiss it as barred by limitation if you proceed. However, we will give you an option to withdraw the petition, and approach the Delhi High Court which has jurisdiction over the matter. Is that acceptable to you?”
Silence. More confusion. And growing panic.
The junior Judge on the Bench intervened, trying to help matters.
“All we are saying is, why don’t you say that you take back this petition, and file the case before the Delhi High Court? They will probably be able to hear this matter, and help you.”
But he couldn’t. He had spent all his money on filing this petition, and he couldn’t afford going back to the Delhi High Court to pursue his case. He wanted to be allowed to argue this matter.
“Now see here.” The Judge was running out of patience—and time. Five minutes had already been spent on this matter.
“I am telling you for the last time, withdraw your petition now, or I will have to dismiss it as barred by limitation, and I cannot give you any more time for this.”
“All I want is my job back.” He piped up, in a clear voice, hoping that this plea for help would be heard. A half-second of silence. Followed by muffled laughter from the lawyers at the back. It died down quickly enough.
“I am sorry; there is nothing I can do to help you. Petition dismissed as barred by limitation. Next case.”
He stood there stunned as if someone had shot him. He didn’t move. The lawyer appearing in the next case nudged him away from the front bench to take his place. He walked to the back of the courtroom slowly, clutching his file and books. No one took notice of him as he walked out.
[Based on a true life incident to which I was a witness]
what is the difference between GOD and Supreme Court Judge?
GOD DOES NOT THINK HE IS JUDGE OF SUPREME COURT.
However, there is no court no. 15 in Supreme Court… i understand why correct court no is not given
How can we expect the Supreme Court to be different from milie. All the present day institutions and individuals are part and parcel of the decaying state of public life.
Expressing anguish over the cavalier manner of the judges of the honourable Supreme Court, is something analagous to expecting media to sport a holier than though mantle.
Alok,
An interesting tale!
Please clarify a few points: why didn’t the petitioner argue his case before a district court or even a high court over the labour tribunal’s order? Something is missing here. Even petitioners wanting to argue their cases will have sufficient knowledge as to the procedures. Surely the case was posted before the Supreme Court and it duly came up for hearing and the judge made the right decision. What is wrong with that?
Supreme Court rightfully thought here was a ‘crank’ trying to waste the court’s time–whatever may be the merits of the case! One can easily imagine the Supreme Court chambers being filled up by arguing petitioners in the pursuit of justice. An easy tale but avoids a few logical steps. Not a bad effort, really.
On the lighter side perhaps in the court of Imran Khan some instance justice can be dispensed under the Sharia?:)
The story reflects the state of persons who argue on their own before the appellate courts. Having practiced as an an advocate I can feel the emotions that the person has undergone arguing the case. You cannot expect the judges to be humane when they are asked to dispose certain number of cases each day.
Please do not forget that shark Mr Reddy from BWSSB, was reinstated to his job, even after retirement by Supreme Court, even though high court had stayed it…
Now supreme court has been painted black!
with this quality of work, what do you expect?
‘lok, very nicely written.
please write on these issues more, especially with an aim to educate us about the hows and the whys of the working of the law/justice.
sincerely,
t’subba
Interesting. This is probably the same attitude that makes the doctors in the hospitals turn away accident cases because they don’t want to deal with it.
I bet these judges enjoy their vacations quite well. Vacations that no other central or state government employee (other than teachers) gets. Taking weeks off en masse with the backlog of cases that we have should be a criminal offense.
@TS
Thanks… I hope to.
Its not that I want to paint the judges as evil, as some of you seem to be suggesting, but rather to illustrate the point that application of the law (and no one can argue that the judges were acting illegally) does not always lead to justice, and also that the Supreme Court is also an institution of human beings who can be made to look very bad even when they are right.
Alok,
No the judges are not evil. But would the non-application of the law (accepting the petition in this case) have any adverse affect on anybody? If not, the judges probably need a refresher course in public service.
Interesting article. While this incident makes sad reading, one wonders if the Supreme Court was the only recourse left to the petitioner. Did he not try the lower courts first, especially as that would have been the logical course of action? This case brings out in addition to the other points mentioned, a need for voluntary legal advice cells when lawyers are not available or cannot be hired.
On another note I would be curious as to what it costs to file a petition in the SC. Going by this account it must be a considerable amount.
Hey Alok, Pls tell me when did this episode happen. And, did have you have the chance to speak to this fellow.
thanks for such great artcle..you don’t know the impact of this on me who is fighting against currupted judiciary..truely showing me a correct way to think and deal with..thank you friend..thanks a lot