“All the world over true peace depends
not upon gunpowder but upon pure justice.”- Mahatma Gandhi.
The writing of a judgment is one of the most
important tasks among other activities performed by a judge. Very recently a
debate has been arising in our country whether a judge can write verdict after
retirement. However, neither the Constitution nor the Supreme Court of
Bangladesh Rules (both High Court Division and Appellate Division) have any
clear cut provision regarding the time frame to write a judgment. Indeed in
this country there is no time limit to finish the writing of a judgment. It
totally depends upon the discretion of the concerned judge. Nevertheless it is
a time consuming task and it takes major part of judge’s work. Moreover,
backlog of cases has put a great pressure on the judges to accomplish their
duties timely.
The
judgment writing offers occasions for judicial officers to express his/her own
ability and his/her worthiness to be a member in the high tradition of moral
integrity and social utility. The judgment is also a reflection of the
conscience of a judge, who writes it and evidences his impartiality, integrity
and intellectual honesty. However, a judgment is not written only for the
benefit of the parties concerned. It is also written for the benefit of legal
profession, other judges and the appellate courts ultimately. Before scripting
a judgment a judge must consider that he is performing a public act of
communicating his opinion on the issues brought before him and after the trial
by observing fair procedures. It is basically a communication to the parties
coming before him for a decision.
However, there is a golden saying that “Judgment delayed is judgment
denied”. It is perfectly understandable that litigants should expect to know of
the outcome of their cases and the reasons behind it as soon as practically
possible. Depending on a number of factors, including time, constraints, the
nature of the evidence led and the complexity of the matter, both in terms of
facts or the applicable law and the importance and urgency of the case, one is
expected to deliver a judgment soon after the case is finalised. However, it
becomes a custom in our country that judge pronounces the decision in open
court immediately after completing the trial processes and delivering detail
judgment at his own convenience even after retirement. It is expected by all
that no judge should delaying in deliver his judgment. However, a judge may
seat for hearing till his last day of service which makes the thing difficult.
Problem arises when a judge pronounced his/her decision during his tenure and
giving detail verdict at a latter time after his service period. Due to absence
of any clear cut provision, a question has arisen whether it is legal. There is
no law or judgment on this particular matter. Nevertheless unreasonable delay
may bring severe consequences for the justice seekers even it can frustrate the
outcome. Invariably this result in inordinate delays and worse may result in
the judicial officer not being able to recall the reasons which prompted
him/her to make the order that he/she made.
Now question
comes whether a retired judge can handle public document. The answer to this
question is not too easy. Generally he cannot. But what happen if it requires
to give the full judgment what s/he declared earlier? Again there is no law or
ruling on this point. Though he announced his decision and needs to show his
contention hence he may be permitted to do it within possible shortest time
unless contrary is being enacted by the parliament or settled by the court.
Otherwise, many of the earlier landmark decisions will become invalid.
Additionally, a Supreme Court judge has some embargo even after his retirement.
So mere retirement may not ceasing his capacity to write judgment. Furthermore,
in this particulars case, he only deals with the documents relating with his
given decision which is necessary to accomplish the whole process of justice.
If one is not allowed to do it then something must be invented to give redress
to the justice seekers.
On the contrary, in some exceptional cases, a judge may not being able
to reach his/her decision without being conversant with the matter
appropriately. In that case he may take time to declare his decision. However,
in Anil Ray v State of Bihar, AIR (2001) SC 3173 the Indian Supreme Court held
that as the pronouncement of the judgement is a part of justice dispensation
system, it has to be without delay and the court bind the time limit to three
months to deliver judgment. In addition, it suggested some ways to the Chief
Justice of India to make the process speedier. Similarly our Chief Justice can
take necessary steps to make it binding to deliver judgment within possible
shortest time.
However,
according to Justice Sunil Ambwani of Allahabad High Court, India; there is a
difference between neutrality and
impartiality. Impartiality
requires cool reason uncontaminated thinking without being influenced by
personal commitments, biases and preconceptions. The neutrality on the other hand
means the judge is non-aligned. A Judge may being neutral and continue to be so
in the process of the trial, but at the end he has to decide the case in favour
of either of the parties without any partiality. Impartiality requires a judge
to rise above all values and perspectives.
No comments:
Post a Comment