Justice is not just the decision of the court. Justice is the name of the trust with the help of which a citizen reaches the door of the system for his rights. But when the decision of a case is postponed for years, the question is not only about what the decision will be, but it also becomes important how much the life of that person will have changed by the time the decision comes.
The file of a case is pending in the court, but its impact is not limited to the four walls of the court. The financial condition of a family, the hopes of an elder, the future of a youth, the safety of a woman, a property dispute and sometimes the life of an entire generation is linked to it. Therefore, it is not enough to consider delay in justice as merely an administrative problem. This is a question related to human life.
The biggest irony is that the person going to court is often already going through some crisis. He wants justice, but the process of getting justice itself becomes a long ordeal for him. Lawyer's fees, arrangement of documents, cost of traveling to the court, leave from work, availability of witnesses and waiting for the next date—all these add up to a cost on the individual which is not reflected in the copy of any order.
It is this price of time that the poor and weak pay the most. For someone who has a limited income, every extra court date is not just another date on the calendar. It could also be a day's wages, travel expenses and money deducted from family needs. On the other hand, a financially strong person can afford a lengthy litigation for a relatively longer period of time. In such a situation, the question of equal access to justice becomes more serious.
Delayed justice sometimes weakens the very purpose for which the person had approached the court. If there is a land dispute, the price of the land, the condition and needs of the family may change after years. If it is a matter related to employment, then the age of employment may expire till the decision is taken. If there is a family dispute then only legal papers can be saved instead of relationships. In a criminal case, the victim's family waits for the verdict for years, while the accused also bears the burden of the lengthy trial process.
Therefore the question of judicial pendency is not merely a question of reducing the number of cases. It is also important to ask what society loses if a case drags on.
The entry of technology into the justice system is certainly a significant change. Systems like online case status, digital records, video conferencing and e-courts have tried to reduce the information gap between courts and citizens. But technology will become a real improvement only if it also helps simplify and speed up the process. If a citizen gets to know the status of his case on mobile, but has to wait for months for the next effective hearing, the gap between digital convenience and actual justice will remain.
Increasing the speed of justice does not mean delivering the verdict in a hurry. There can be no compromise on quality and fairness in justice. But fairness and unnecessary delay are not the same thing. The court needs adequate time, but the system also needs to ensure that a person's life is not stuck in uncertainty for years due to procedural reasons.
For this, merely increasing the number of judges will not be sufficient. Management of cases, unnecessary adjournments, preparation of the government side, availability of witnesses, quality of investigation, digitization of records and administrative efficiency in the courts—all these aspects have to be worked together. The question that needs to be asked at every stage is what is the real obstacle preventing the matter from moving forward.
Another important aspect is the age of the case. Just as deadlines are set for a product or project, the judicial process too must develop an understanding that the progress of each case must be constantly monitored as per the circumstances. Instead of looking at every case on the same scale, there should be a strong system of prioritization according to the seriousness, nature and status of the affected parties.
The most dangerous impact of delay in justice is not on the courts, but on people's confidence. If citizens begin to feel that it will take so long to get justice that it will change their lives, their trust in the law may weaken. And in a democracy, trust in the judiciary is not only a question of the strength of the constitutional system but also the basis of social stability.
We also have to understand that the value of justice lies not only in the decision but also in its timeliness. Right decision is necessary, but only the right decision taken at the right time can bring real relief to the citizen. Many times the decision received after years, despite being legally correct, does not compensate for the loss that has been incurred during the wait.
Therefore, a new question should now be at the center of the judicial reform debate—how much time should a case take and who is responsible for that time?
Courts are the last place of trust of the society. The citizen who reaches there is already going through some dispute, injustice or crisis. He does not need a maze of dates, he needs a direction towards a solution. The success of the justice system should not only be measured by how many judgments are delivered, but also by how many people get effective justice within a reasonable time.
Time does not come back. Lost property can sometimes be recovered, financial losses can also be compensated, but those years of life spent waiting for a decision cannot be recovered.
That is why the most expensive thing in the path of justice is probably not court fees, but time.
And now the most important question is this – is our justice system ready to consider the citizen's time as an important part of justice?