Karnataka High Court (Principal Bench) has, perhaps for the first time, disposed cases more than the filing rate.
The “Virtual Justice Clock” (digital information provided on the Karnataka High Court website) gives monthly details of “cases instituted in last month” and “cases disposed in last month” apart from other details such as (1) Cases filed by Senior Citizen (2) Cases filed by Woman (3) Cases pending for last 1 year, 1 to 3 years, 3 to 5 years, 5 to 10 years, 10 to 20 years, 20 to 30 years and above 30 years.
The cases instituted in September in the Principal Bench of the Karnataka High Court were 6594 and the disposed cases were 6977 i.e. more than 400 cases.
The cases instituted in September in the Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court were 2119 and the disposed cases were 2007.
The cases instituted in September in the Principal Bench of the Karnataka High Court were 1074 and the disposed cases were 770.
The increase in number of judges has also contributed to disposal of cases. However, the fact remains that the efficiency of the Karnataka High Court in the matter of disposal of cases on merits has always been exemplary.
I had the opportunity of hearing the speech delivered by Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Judge, Supreme Court of India in the Bar Council Seminar held in Guwahati on 10 September 2022. His lordship said “I am not so much worried about pendency of cases . I am worried about the day a client loses faith in the judicial system and stops approaching the Courts.”
While this is the harsh reality, interim orders granted by the Constitutional Courts and pendency of cases certainly act as deterrent for the Executive from indulging in arbitrary and illegal acts. An interim order granted in one matter will prevent the subordinate Courts and the Executive from passing illegal orders.
There was a Judge in Karnataka High Court (who ultimately made his way to SC as CJ) who was known for his infamous “Consider and Pass Orders” decisions. Thousands and thousands of cases which ought to have been heard on merits and ‘decided’ were ‘disposed’ under this “Consider and Pass Orders” category resulting in grave injustice. Such practice cannot be certainly called speedy justice.
Fortunately we see the finest combination of patient hearing and deciding of cases on merits in Karnataka High Court. There is a perfect balance in this regard. I am sure unnecessary pendency of cases will be a thing of the past soon with the hard-work and strong determination being exhibited both by the Judges and the Lawyers.
S.Basavaraj, Senior Advocate and Chairman, Karnataka State Bar Council Law Academy, Bengaluru
Daksha Legal 